User talk:Rama

Archives : 1 - 50 | 51 - 100 | 101 - 150 | 151 - 200 | 201 - 250| 251 - 300 | 301 - 350 | 351 - 400 | 401 - 450

---

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 [1] 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 [2]. 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:

[[3]]

--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 [4], [5], [6] and [7] 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)

This is why you have settings like "upright". There are instances of images where a size should be hardcoded, but they are exceptions. In the general case, hard-coding a value is a bad practice.

The anonymous account argument puzzles me, why would we want to destroy the adaptability of image size for everybody because some people will not enjoy it? Either way the size will be ill-appropriate for some; the difference is that is one case you can adapt is to your requirements, in the other you cannot. Rama (talk) 14:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The upright setting seems to make more sense. The default argument is really weak, though. It's theoretically flexible, but only for an incredible small group of readers. It also assumes that all images need to be of the exact same size, which is just absurd. It's a type of standardization that seems as pointless as when we used to link all full dates just to enable individual settings for how dates should be displayed (but only for registered users who actually tweak with their preferences conciously).

There has to be a better way of solving this problem than simply defaulting to the position most favorable to the active registered Wikipedia editor.

Peter ^Isotalo 19:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Some customisation is still preferable to none. 250px, an often set value, can look huge on a subnotebook and tiny on a high-end desktop. Rama (talk) 19:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

But how exactly does it look to the overwhelming majority of people who don't fiddle with preferences of this sort? What is the default setting of those who aren't logged in as users?

Peter ^Isotalo 20:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

It looks 200px wide. I do not know whether the setting is satisfactory for the majority of users because I did not conduct a statistical analysis, but I would refrain from drawing conclusions from how is looks on my own screen. Maybe such a study should be conducted and the default value for thumbnail size should be adapted accordingly, but hard-coding a value is never a good solution. Rama (talk) 20:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we're talking past each other somewhat. The problem is that all images can't always be displayed at the same size. The Oliwa-pic and the map of Vasa's maiden voyage are very good examples of that. Defaulting all images is no less generalizing than going by one's own monitor resolution (which is actually not what I have done in this case). Again, there has to be a better solution to this problem than simply defaulting the size of all images.

Peter ^Isotalo 21:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

This is the reason why the is a "upright" setting. I have the impression of having read something about a percentage of the default size that can be used to emphasise maps, for instance, but I can't seem to retrieve it. Rama (talk) 21:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) "Upright" doesn't seem to be of much use for my example since neither is taller on the vertical. It would be very good if you could find that latter solution. The voyage map in the Vasa-article is really not very useful at 200px, especially not on a printout.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:34, 24 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)

Gilbertus

Bonjour Rama. Je suis encore complètement bloqué sur Commons. Je ne peux pas laisser de message à personne. J’ai demandé de l’aide à VIGNERON qui n’a pas réussi non plus avant de te retrouver sur Wikipédia. Que se passe-t-il? Merci de ton aide. Cordialement. Gilbertus IP 207.253.63.13. Blocage du 22 octobre à 18:46 par SterkeBak #18716. --207.253.63.13 (talk) 20:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)--207.253.63.13 (talk) 20:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

C'est en effet anormal. Pourrais-tu me copier le message d'erreur que tu obtiens, ça aiderait à comprendre d'où vient le problème. Rama (talk) 20:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Ca fonctionne à nouveau, merci!--207.253.63.13 (talk) 00:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Image deletions

Regarding your on-sight deletions of Image:Sissel Aznavour.jpg and Image:Anabela esc 93.jpg:

7. Invalid fair-use claim.

• Invalid fair-use claims tagged with {{subst:dfu}} may be deleted seven days after they are tagged, if a full and valid non-free use rationale is not added. (Emphasis added)

{{subst:dfu|reason}} is the template you're looking for, and then, of course, there's WP:IFD, considering they have valid claims. لennavecia 14:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion: "Criteria for speedy deletion specify the limited cases where administrators may delete Wikipedia pages or media without discussion.". (emphasise added) Rama (talk) 15:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

That would be in reference to, for images, the limited cases that fall under bullet 1:

7.Invalid fair-use claim.

• Non-free images or media with a clearly invalid fair-use tag (such as a {{Non-free logo}} tag on a photograph of a mascot) may be deleted at any time.

These images had the correct tags, thus this was not one of "the limited cases where administrators may delete ... without discussion". These images fell under bullet 3, which is quoted above. لennavecia 15:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

As I understand "administrators may delete Wikipedia pages or media without discussion", items meeting criteria for speedy deletion can be deleted by admin without discussion; the rest, "Non-administrators can request speedy deletion by adding an appropriate template", referring to what happens if they are spotted by non-admins.

Which entails that bullet three applies if a tag was added, which is not the case here because of the first sentence of the page. Rama (talk) 16:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding the policy. If it were as you're taking it, non-admins could tag images and we could just deleted them. It makes no sense that an admin can come upon an image and make the sole determination that the rationale is inadequate, a rationale that in this case was written by a vetreran administrator, and just delete it; and then if a non-admin comes upon it, they must tag it and admins must wait a week to delete. That just doesn't make sense. There are limited cases where images may be immediately deleted. This was certainly not one of those cases. لennavecia 16:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It makes exactly as much sense as giving administrators administrative tools which are not available to other users. Besides, I am only reading and applying the policy. If something else should be done, something else should have been written. Rama (talk) 20:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I had limited wiki time this weekend and have just remembered this. Okay, so here's the thing, I think you're misreading the policy. We don't just delete images. We give time for the issues to be corrected with a few exceptions. When it comes down to it, you improperly deleted these two images. Period. That's what I'm bringing to your attention and attempting to keep from happening in the future. لennavecia 04:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Well I think that you are misreading the policy, making logical errors, and imposing unneeded paperwork where none is required. Rama (talk) 08:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

You improperly deleted two images of a long-established admin because you did not like the rationales. Clearly that was a decision for IFD. لennavecia 13:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

That is your opinion. Mine is that I properly deleted two images whose "fair-use" rational was bollocks, and that being a "long-established admin" on en: does not necessarily entail that one knows what fair use is -- many people do not. Rama (talk) 13:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Obviously. لennavecia 20:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The Significance of Admiral Courbet's victories

Dear Rama,

Courbet restored the honour of French arms after France's defeat in the Franco-Prussian War. That is the chief significance of his victories in the Sino-French War, and I will be happy to provide suitable quotes and references to demonstrate that fact. For a start, here is Thomazi's assessment in the 1930s, speaking of the French victory at the Battle of Fuzhou.

The admiral was entirely justified when, on reaching Matsu on the evening of 30 August 1884, he said in his Order of the Day to the squadron: ‘You have just accomplished a feat of arms of which the navy can be justifiably proud.’ Observers who had believed that the French squadron had put its head into a noose now realized that its ascent of the Min River had been a magnificent act of considered boldness, and judged its descent to the sea as ‘a military feat of the first order, whatever one might think of the military virtues of the Chinese’. The greatness of the exploit was also recognized in France, and Jules Ferry cabled Courbet, ‘The country which saluted you as the victor of Son Tay is now in your debt for a new feat of arms. The Government of the Republic is happy to accord to your admirable crews and to their glorious leader this expression of the nation’s gratitude.’ The victorious Courbet was awarded the médaille militaire. This time, he also won fame. ‘Nobody talks here of anybody else but you, or admires anybody else but you,’ wrote a friend, M. E. Ferry, mayor of the ninth arrondissement. ‘On every street corner we find portraits of you, of varying degrees of inaccuracy. What really pleases me is that the parties have forgotten their differences, and all declare that you are a hero. Wait and see the reception you get when you come to Paris. People will fight to see you.’ He featured in the musée Grévin, and was deeply annoyed when he heard. ‘I am bewildered by this whole sorry business. I have a horror of hero-worship in general, and of this kind of hero-worship in particular.’ But the tributes kept flowing in from all sides and in every shape and form. Paul Bert wrote to him, ‘I beg that Admiral Courbet will be kind enough to accept this expression of enthusiastic admiration and respectful homage from a patriot. He has made me feel happy for the first time since the news of our disasters.’ The entire navy was proud of its hero, and in the army the ablest spirits paid him homage. ‘You would be touched to know,’ General de Négrier wrote, ‘how much your old soldiers and sailors have been buoyed up by your latest victory. Since 1870 we have lived under the shadow of defeat ... You have given us what we most needed: confidence.’ Perhaps the praise which the admiral relished most was that given by a sailor under his command, reported by the naval surveyor Bouquet de la Grye: ‘Admiral Courbet is a great commander. He doesn’t get his men killed for nothing.’( Thomazi, La conquete de l'Indochine, 212-213)

I will shortly be adding a paragraph to the article on the reception of Courbet's victories in France. In the mean time, my statement that Courbet restored French honour is a historical fact, and the most important aspect of his career. That is why I want that statement up front in the first paragraph. Why did you remove it?

Djwilms (talk) 02:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Am%C3%A9d%C3%A9e_Courbet"

Your statement is pure peacocking. What is "honour"? Where, when and how did the French "lose" their honour before? How comes sinking a bunch of obsolete and helpless ships using state-of-the-art warships has such virtues of "honour"?

You can state that Courbet's performances at combat where recognised in France, but repeating emotionally loaded stories with no factual value is exactly what we thrive to avoid with the NPOV policy. Rama (talk) 08:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear Rama,

You are clearly not familiar with the extraordinary outburst of patriotism displayed by the French when Courbet's body was returned to France. In August 1885 tens of thousands of Frenchmen and Frenchwomen lined the streets of Avignon, Paris and Abbeville to pay homage to the man who, as they saw it, had restored the honour of France after the military disasters of the Franco-Prussian War. You may not like it, but it happened, and is a part of history. It is not 'peacocking', whatever that means. It is a historical fact. And this homage, remarkably, came only five months after the fall of Jules Ferry's administration at the end of March over the Tonkin Affair. I'll give you the footnotes in due course, but this is how I assess the significance of Courbet's victories in my forthcoming book on the Sino-French War:

From Paris Courbet’s body was taken back to Picardy, to his home town of Abbeville. The town’s Haymarket Square had been renamed Place de l’Amiral Courbet in his honour, and on 1 September 1885 a second funeral service was held in the cathedral of Saint Vulfran, where Courbet had been baptised. The proceedings were on almost the same scale as in Paris. The streets of Abbeville were decked with tricolour flags, and adorned with triumphal arches. Once again, a grand procession was held. Once again, the funeral oration was spoken by Émile Freppel. Courbet’s body was finally laid to rest in the crypt of the Courbet family. Tens of thousands of silent spectators lined the route to the cemetery. Finally, in the early evening, the body of France’s greatest admiral ever was lowered into its grave. The last of the many eulogies recited in the past few days over Courbet’s unresponsive corpse was delivered by Admiral Galiber, the navy minister.

It was only five months since Jules Ferry had been hounded from office by an enraged Parisian mob. Now, tens of thousands of Frenchmen and Frenchwomen spontaneously lined the streets of Paris, Avignon and Abbeville to pay tribute to Courbet’s achievement. This remarkable demonstration was not an endorsement of French policy in Tonkin, nor was it an expression of support for colonial conquest in general. Rather, Courbet’s fellow-citizens were paying homage to the man who had restored French national pride after the disasters of 1870. Courbet’s victories had not effaced the memory of Sedan. It would take a world war and over a million French casualties to do that. But he had shown the world that French soldiers and sailors, if properly led, could fight at least as well as the Germans. He had shown that there was nothing wrong with France’s armed forces. After the humiliations of 1870, the tricolour had once again flown over fields of victory. France could look her European peers in the face again.

Surely this is not so difficult to understand? Replace the Franco-Prussian War, the Sino-French War, and Admiral Courbet with the Vietnam War, Gulf War I and Norman Schwartzkopf, and you have a comparable example of a military commander reviving a nation's pride in its armed forces after an unsuccessful war.

If you look at the articles I have contributed to Wikipedia over the past few months on the Sino-French War and the Cochinchina campaign you will see that I provide chapter and verse for my statements. I have been researching the Sino-French War for more than seven years, and I am familiar with both the French and Chinese sources for it. I am also well aware of the NPOV principle, and have weighed the language that I have used in my articles accordingly. As a historian by background, and as an academic editor by trade, I am careful about what I write. My statement that Courbet's victories restored French national pride was not made lightly, and is amply supported by the sources. I object strongly to you removing it, and I would like this issue to be resolved by whatever arbitration procedures Wikipedia has. You have been contributing to Wikipedia for longer than me, and you will doubtless know what happens next.

Djwilms (talk) 01:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Your knowledge of the French press of the time is commandable, but it is not excuse to write like it did. That Courbet was popular is a fact (of which I am well aware); that he "restored the honour of French arms" is a bloated, lyrical, imprecise, insulting and uninformative phrase. Rama (talk) 08:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, we must agree to differ. But I will try not to be as rude as you. Would you accept sonething along these lines: ' These victories made Courbet a national hero in France, and restored pride in the performance of the French armed forces after France's defeat in the Franco-Prussian War'?

Djwilms (talk) 09:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

No. That Courbet was made a hero is a fact, but the notion about pride and honour is completely subjective and meaningless. You are parroting the colonialist propaganda of the time.

What would you do is a Marxist came along and insisted to include, in the head of the article, that Courbet's expeditions were a display of oppression by indistrualised nations over the Chinese working class and an example of imperialist behaviour symptomatic of the forthcoming collapse of capitalism? The "pride and honour" tale is of the very same nature. Rama (talk) 10:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear Rama,

An interesting point. If Marxists did hold that view at the time, and if their attitude had any discernable political consequences (i.e. was a significant historical fact), then I would accept such a statement provided that it was prefaced by the qualification 'in Marxist eyes', so that the reader knows that this is a subjective view. In fact, it might be interesting to balance a statement of what Courbet's victories meant to the French with one on how he appeared to the Chinese ('the terrible Kupa' or 'the treacherous Kupa').

Surely the solution to this issue is simply to insert a similar qualification into my original sentence, so that it would run as follows: 'These victories made Courbet a national hero in France, and in the eyes of many Frenchmen restored the honour of French arms after France's defeat in the Franco-Prussian War.' I would then add a paragraph in the main body of the article on the reception of Courbet's victories in France and would quote sources that amply justify both assertions in the lead paragraph of the article.

The term 'restored the honour of French arms' is indeed lyrical, but that was how people spoke in those days and that was the term they used. Provided that the subjectivity of the expression is made clear, as it would be with the addition of the qualification 'in the eyes of many Frenchmen', I really cannot see any objection to it, and it gives the proper flavour of the period.

Djwilms (talk) 01:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

"Restored the honour of French arms" can only be uttered if it is a direct quotation, properly attributed, and clearly marked as such. And I doubt that such a phrase would belong in he lead anyway.

Where did you acquire the notion that subjects had to be formulised as to give "the proper flavour of the period"? If we were to do that for Newton, for instance, the basics of mechanics would be incomprehensible. We are a modern and neutral encyclopedia, we formulise things according to the NPOV policy. Rama (talk) 04:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear Rama,

'Restored the reputation of France's armed forces', then.

Djwilms (talk) 04:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

This is no more a fact that "honour". You should either find a significant quote and attribute it, or renounce the idea of having such wording. Rama (talk) 05:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Proserpine/Amelia

Rama, I salute you on your work on French age-of-sail ships! Do you have any information on Proserpine as a French ship prior to 1796? HMS Amelia (1796) has a gaping hole for the first 9 years of her life. Yours, Shem (talk) 16:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I have tried to put something, but it is not much. I'll see if I can find more. Rama (talk) 17:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

More ships?

Hi there, thanks for looking at Action of 31 May 1809. If you have a chance, maybe you could also look at some of the red links in Raid on Saint Paul and Action of 18 November 1809? I'm particularly curious as to the first name of General Desbrusleys, who committed suicide during the Raid on Saint Paul and as to whether he is notable in anyway. In addition, I am thinking of taking Murray Maxwell to FA and was wondering if you might be able to create articles on Sensible, Sardine and any of the other ships still red linked that you can help on. Thanks again for all your help.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello,

I'll gladly look up more French ships, but I think that you are probably better informed than I am when it comes to British ones. I'll try to see if I can find something about this Feretier chap, in addition to Desbrusleys.

Cheers! Rama (talk) 11:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The Des Bruslys article is superb! Congratulations. Anything you can help with as you did with Victor and Nereide is very welcome, anything you can't then leave to me and I'll deal with it one way or another. Thankyou very much and a warning that I'm planning on completing this campaign before Christmas, which will probably mean a lot more red links if you are up for them. Regards --Jackyd101 (talk) 18:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

your assistance please...

Can you help me figure out who nominated the image of the Limburg for deletion. I never got any notice that it was nominated. I thought I put a meaningful explanation as to why I thought it should be considered "fair use". I have no problem with someone having a different view. But I think they should have initiated a discussion, rather than silently tagging it for deletion.

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 17:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bombing_of_the_Limburg&diff=233339358&oldid=228796899

Hello,

I am afraid I did, actually. More precisely, I deleted the image, as policy allows.

"Fair use" is used to allow discussing copyright works of art, typically. As such, Raising the flag on Iwo Jima is a proper example of Fair Use. What you did can amount to shopping on the Internet for copyrighted image used simply to decorate an article.

The crucial point is "Depicts a unique historical event. No free or public-domain images available": if we would be happy to use image B as a replacement for "fair-use" image A if B was under a Free licence, then image A cannot be claimed as fair use in the first place.

Anyway, in the case of the Limburg, we could produce a schematics, for instance.

Cheers! Rama (talk) 04:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Attack on Mers-el-Kébir

Considering France had surrendered and signed a Armistice with France (Second Compiègne) in June, i would constitute that as a former ally. Also this phrase `despite reassurances from France that it would not let it fall into German hands` is mention in the background section why bring this in to the intro --Rockybiggs (talk) 13:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

France was an ally of the UK because it had an alliance treaty with it and had not cancelled it. The French government consulted with the British before requesting an armistice because of the terms of the alliance, but apart from this, the armistice is irrelevant. Rama (talk) 14:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

An Armistice is more than relevant, as they Ceased being allies against Germany. How can France have been an Ally of Great Britain, when it was occupied and had surrendered? Therefore super seeding any alliance treaty.--Rockybiggs (talk) 14:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but by that standard, France and the UK were not allied before the war started, since they were not fighting against a third party ; and France and the UK were at war, since the British were shelling the French. Alliances are treaties, texts with a legal value, not vague personal feelings. Rama (talk) 14:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Reassurances are important in the sense that they contradict the very reasons for the attack, and later proved accurate. Rama (talk) 14:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

English spelling

I find the english-american spelling wars rather always rather ridiculous but rewriting the name of a Washington institution with the english spelling??? LOL. --Xeeron (talk) 15:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

It is not a war, the article is in British spelling. It is common practice on British media to refere to the "US department on defence". I am quite certain that the reverse is true with our American friends. Rama (talk) 15:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Even when the word is part of a proper name? Didn't know that. Well, as a non-american non-brit, I'll happily leave the matters of u's and re's in the hands of editors who care. Btw, I am almost certain that the huge majority of the article was botched together from numberous news sources, so it is funny that it turned out clearly british. --Xeeron (talk) 15:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I mean that the article was started in British English; it happens to be Wikipedia policy to have consistent spelling within an article.

Yes, even when part of a proper name: "The Defence Secretary at the time, Donald Rumsfeld, told journalist Bob Woodward..." [8], for instance. Rama (talk) 16:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

HMS Surprise (1796)

Dear Rama

I'm curious about your use of "The Unité" instead of "L'Unité" or just "Unité". Clearly this is an English language article, and the use of the definate article before ship names is best avoided, so I've changed the openning line to "Unité", but I'm interested in your opinion. How would she have been known in French service? L'Unité or Unité?

I've also changed the wikilink for "Glorious First of June" back to the article name, rather than "Third Battle of Ushant", since it seems to make sense to refer directly to the Wikipedia article by the most common English language name - I honestly couldn't have told you an hour ago what the "Third Battle of Ushant" was, and I'm not unversed in Naval History!

Yours, Shem (talk) 16:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The name of the ship is clearly "Unité"; the article is not part of the name. In French, ships are referred to with an article: exactly like in English you would say "the Victory", in French you would say "l' Unité" or "le Victory" (mind where the italics start) -- but in French you cannot say "Victory fait route...", you have to say "Le Victory fait route...".

There is a tendency in English texts to put the article with the name and write something like "L'Unité", but this is in general a trick to have the name look French; it has no more value that when Tex Avery writes "Ye Mayflower" on the hull of the Mayflower to give a flavour of 16th century. The problem is particularly acute when you see things like "the Le Dugay-Trouin" (2 articles following each other), or even "the La Dugay-Trouin" (the feminine form is, to be polite, unlikely).

About the "Glorious First of June", I just felt it bizarre to use such a loaded propaganda term in a French context, but if the battle is really much more often known as this in English, it does make sense to use the least surprising term.

Cheers! Rama (talk) 16:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)