User talk:Rama/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

French sailing warships

Hi, Rama. I have been actively expanding the articles on French ships of the line and French sail frigates to encompass more of the numerous ships which were omitted when these articles were set up. I have also been putting in hundreds of ships back as far as Colbert. Sadly this process does show up how few articles on individual French ships exist. If you have the time, it would be most useful if you could put in some extra articles, no matter how short. Rif Winfield (talk) 10:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for your work, which I have noticed and appreciated in the past.

As you said, there are hundreds of entries to create. Ideally, over time, the desired outcome is evidently to create these articles, but they are so numerous that setting goals is unrealistic. I would need several people on a full-time basis to complete the task in a reasonable amount of time.

Furthermore, the disparity of the ships' carrers entails that there are hundreds of entries that would be of little interest. I firmly believe that they are intrinsically worthy; yet, from my initial fancy of systematically completing articles of all 120-guns, then 80-guns, then 74-guns of the Revolutionary and Napoleonic era, I have been diverted into writing articles for frigates or even corvettes whose carrers are more historically striking than those of the less employed capital ships.

And also, there are several eras that tend to divide the work: we are similarly lacking with respect to ironclad battleships and cruisers, which are much fewer than ships of the line.

To conclude, I do intend to slowly work towards our common goal of a fully documented French Navy, but I will have to give priority to ships whose carrers are better illustrated or narrated.

Cheers! Rama (talk) 07:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply. I shall continue to put names into both the French ships of the line and French sail frigates articles whenever I have the opportunity, which will at least provide a basis (name, number of guns established, and launch date) from which to create the article for every vaisseau and frégate, so that whenever you wish to create a new article/stub, you can at least link it in to the 'list' articles for cross-referencing purposes. In creating articles, please use the form "French frigate .... (launch year)" for each frigate (I mention this because someone created an article for "French ship Belle Poule", which needed re-heading) and reserve the term "French ship" for ships of the line. Incidentally, I shall have a book on First Rates from the early 17th century to c.1860 (including French and other overseas equivalents of the British First Rate) being published in 2010. Regards! Rif Winfield (talk) 15:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, congratulations! I would ask whether I can assist you in any way in this endeavour, but I assume that the dies are cast by now. Do let me know when the book comes out, I would be interested.

Sorry about the "frigate" thing, if you see such mistakes do not hesitate to tell me if fixing them is tiresome.

Thank you and cheers! Rama (talk) 16:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

PS: I am of course always open to specific requests regarding these ships, it is only the documentation of the entire Navy that I find to be a daunting task. Cheers! Rama (talk) 16:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

PPS: just found 36 unlinked articles in the list of frigates The difficulty to maintain the list up to date probably contributes to the impression that there are fewer articles than are in existance. Rama (talk) 10:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Protée (Q155)

The coordinates 43°03′70″N 05°31′90″E are invalid because the number of seconds of arc cannot be greater than 60. Please double-check these coordinates against your source. --Stepheng3 (talk) 18:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

HMS Calcutta (1795)

Thanks for the kind words. Also, I have gone ahead and added a lot of material to French frigate Armide (1804). Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 16:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Beeindruckende Grafik!

Du hast wirklich Talent! Bin gerade zufällig auf die Graphik zu 磨镜 gestoßen, und wollte zuerst gar nicht glauben, dass das nicht von einer professionellen Publikation gestohlen wurde. Aber dann habe ich deine Sammlung gesehen, und bin wirklich beeindruckt! — Sebastian 06:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Your assistance please...

The record shows you deleted File:Alleged bomb-maker instructing recruits.jpg.

You said it lacked a valid justification. I am reviewing all the images I uploaded when I don't remember a discussion over its deletion. Could you provide me with a copy of the justification I offered?

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 22:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The image is a snapshot from CBS. It invokes Template:Non-free USGov-IEEPA sanctions for a justification, but it no author is given, which makes the claim void and null.

IEEPA sanctions are a purely USAyan decision to spoiliate people based for political reasons, much like the looting of nazi intellectual property in 1945, so I don't even know to which extend we take that seriously. Rama (talk) 08:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

PS: the template in question symptomatically goes in to invoke "fair use", indicating the extend to which this spoilation seems legal. These fair use claims are, of course, invalid when no particular image is taken for mere illustrative purpoposes. See Raising theee Flag on Iwo Jima for an example of correct fair use. Rama (talk) 08:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

You have the advantage of me, because you can see the original source URL, as well as as my original justification. I looked, and it seems you didn't take any steps to advise me when you deleted this image.

Maybe I am going to remind you of something you already knew, and have forgotten. A CBS logo on an screen snapshot image doesn't mean that CBS owns every single image they broadcast. CBS routinely puts their CBS logo on every frame they broadcast -- even when the image is from the public domain.

A couple of years ago I didn't understand that the CBS logo itself is copyright. If I had known that I would have placed a black box over the logo. When I learned this I went back and placed black boxes over some images I uploaded that had the CBS logo on them that no one had challenged.

I have a different understanding now than I did then of the general situation of Afghan copyrights. I sought input several times on the commons village pump, and have been told many times that Afghanistan is not a signatory to any international copyright agreements, and has no internal copyright protection.

Does that mean that every image taken in Afghanistan is clearly in the public domain? I don't know. I know many wikipedia contributors think they are clearly in the public domain. I know that some wikipedia contributors subscribe to an interpretation that the first person to publish an image from Afghanistan in a country that has copyright protection gets to claim all the intellectual property rights, without regard to who actually took the image.

I have suggested, several times that the wikimedia foundation's official lawyers should be asked to weigh in. The last time I raised this I was told that the wikimedia foundation only employed a single lawyer, and more surprisingly to me, he was not an intellectual property lawyer.

I raise this because I think it is important for us to agree that any concern you might have over copyright violation was not open and shut. Because it was not open and shut, I think it was appropriate for you, at the very least, to have advised me that you had deleted the image.

WRT {{Non-free USGov-IEEPA sanctions}} -- I doubt I was the one who added {{Non-free USGov-IEEPA sanctions}}. It is not familiar to me, and I don't fully understand it, so I can't imagine I used it.

Do I need to ask some other administrator to look up the original URL and my original justification? I think this is a reasonable request.

Even if, for the sake of argument, a wikipedia administrator was completely convinced every other wikipedia administrator, and every wikipedia contributor who wasn't a newbie, would support their deletion decisions, IMO, they should still inform the uploader/creator when they speedy delete material, on their sole judgment. When someone else has placed a speedy deletion tag, it was the tag placer's job to inform the uploader/creator. And that heads-up on their uploader/creator's talk page is a permanent record of the deletion. Counting on their watchlist to inform the good-faith contributor is insufficient -- because the uploader/creator may not log on frequently enough for the deletion to still be on their watchlist, or they may be too much of a newbie to know how to use their watchlist; or, like me, they might have edited so many articles that their watchlist is unmanagagebly long. It seems to me that part of the role of the policy compliant administrator is to educate the good-faith contributors who are unknowingly lapsing from policy, and uploading/creating non-policy compliant images and articles. The heads-up that material they created was deleted is essential. The heads-up gives the good faith contributor a clue so they can learn from their mistakes. The failure to inform good-faith uploaders/creators wastes everyone's time. It wastes the time of the good-faith uploader/creators. And it wastes the time of the individuals who end up cleaning up after their future good-faith lapses from policy.

Candidly, Geo Swan (talk) 12:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I think my request, above was civil. It is not my intention to harass you. I do understand that wikipedia administrators are volunteers, who can be busy in real life. But, think the best way for wikipedia contributors to address the time burden of giving civil, meaningful answers to civil, meaningful questions is for wikipedia contributors who are are busy, in real life to scale back the number of concerns they address -- rather than leave some of their efforts incomplete.

I see you have returned to removing images. No offense, but would you please consider responding to the civil questions posed to you about previous deletions, before you recommence your deletion efforts? Geo Swan (talk) 20:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

In short: this sort of work would not be accepted on Commons without assurances being sent to the OTRS. The CBS logo raises severe suspicions, but they are inherent to these entire media; we simply have no idea who took this and to what ends. And there is no reason to accept that some third party could serve as a backdoor to Commons simply by having low standards of verification, accepting what we would not, and yet somehow be constructed as a reliable source to determine copyright status. Rama (talk) 21:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I made two points: (1) in many discussions at the village pump, and elsewhere, the consensus arrived at is that images taken in Afghanistan are not protected by copyright; (2) this means, at the very least, the deletion of this image was not an open and shut case, and should not have been a target of summary deletion.

I would appreciate you addressing these points. Geo Swan (talk) 21:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Commons typically does not endorse plundering and looting of intellectual property on political grounds. This is why some works published by German artists in the early 40s and claimed by Americans to be in the public domain are not allowed on Commons, for instance.

With these premises, considering the media to which you refer, you are in presence of works with no source, no valid licence, and frankly egregious claims as to their copyright status. These are usually met with immediate removal because keeping illegally uploaded media can be harmful, and because there are procedures to restore media in the event of erroneous deletions. Rama (talk) 12:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• Clarification please. I requested you address consensus that arose in multiple discussions that images taken in Afghanistan are not protected by copyright. Should I interpret the following comments as your response to my request? Geo Swan (talk) 18:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Commons typically does not endorse plundering and looting of intellectual property on political grounds... ...you are in presence of works with no source, no valid licence, and frankly egregious claims as to their copyright status...

Yes, very much so. Rama (talk) 18:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• I updated Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Afghanistan images, quoting your reply, and providing diffs of our exchange. I posed a question for you there. Geo Swan (talk) 19:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

If I was interested in shaping the policies of the Afghan government, I would run for elections in that country (or possibly enlist in a staff officer curriculum with the US Army). My concerns are purely legal and technical. Consensus on Wikipedia is not relevant in itself, we do not vote reality out of existence.

If indeed we had solid grounds to believe that all works made in Afghanistan were automatically in the public domain, we would claim very interesting works indeed, like [1] for instance. I encourage you to contact the lawyers of Magnum, Getty and similar other agencies, inform them that their works do not enjoy copyright, and come back to me after the smoke has settled. Rama (talk) 20:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• IANAL. You aren't either, correct? I have suggested, close to a dozen times now, in various discussions, that the wikimedia foundation get the legal advice of a lawyer who specialized in intellectual property law on this issue. Until that time, I think we should comply with our local consensus. If the local consensus, arrived at through the discussion of ordinary wikipedia contributors, is worthless, I welcome your explanation as to why your personal opinion should not also be considered worthless.
• Some participants here have asserted that Afghan images were without any copyright protection -- so the first party to publish them, in a country that has copyright protection, gets to claim all rights, without regard to their association, or lack thereof, with the photographer. Under that interpretation, if magnumphotos first published the images, they get to claim copyright. Under other interpretations the images remain in the public domain. Now, in the case of this particular image, it was first taken in Afghanistan -- so it was created without copyright protection. And it was first published by the DoD. I welcome your explanation as to how CBS can claim any intellectual property rights to it.
• With regard to your suggestion that we contact the lawyers of getty, magnum, etc -- could you please confine yourself to serious suggestions? Intellectual property is in the wild west phase right now. Much is undefined. When things are undefined no lawyer is going to give up one iota of the claims his clients might make -- even the most extreme and unreasonable. Geo Swan (talk) 20:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not a lawyer, neither are you, and neither are the vast majority of the people who have arrived at that "consensus" (what consensus anyway ?). As far as I am concerned, an absurd consensus has no value. But even assuming these most strange and suspicious claims about Afghan copyright to be true, that is not even the issue.

The point is we know nothing of these images. The US Department of Defence is obviously not the first to have published these images (unless the images are a false flag operation on part of the USA, a weird theory of which we would be unlikely to have confirmation anyway). These images have been made at an unknown place, by unknown people, published under unknown licences in an unknown place. Even assuming that Afghanistan is the place where these images have been taken, we have no ground to claim that they are more in the public domain that images of Getty, Magnum, etc. -- which are obviously not in the public domain.

The only particularity of these images is that "its copyright holder is believed to as-Sahab" (believed ?!). This is thus a blatant case of politically motivated looting of intellectual property -- that copyright of enemies of the USA is believed to be fair game by overly enthusiastic people. As the refusal to publish images by Walter Frentz testifies, that position is not supported by Commons. Eventually, these images have no author, no source, no licence, and should be speedily deleted. Rama (talk) 21:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• It's true, IANAL. But I have called for the wikimedia foundation to call on a real lawyer, one who specializes in intellectual property law, to offer his or her professional opinion on the copyright status of Afghan images. Until a real expert weighs in, until a policy specifically addresses the peculiar situation of Afghan images, I think we should stick with the consensii. I am concerned by your comment: "As far as I am concerned, an absurd consensus has no value."
• You wrote: "The point is we know nothing of these images." and "The only particularity of these images is that 'its copyright holder is believed to as-Sahab'" I am mystified as to how you could make these assertions. There is no doubt as to when and where this image was taken. There is no doubt as to how it came to be possessed by the DoD. Omar Khadr, was a 15 year-old Canadian teenager whose father had taken his family to Afghanistan half a decade earlier. When Afghanistan was invaded by the USA his father picked sides, and picked the Taliban/Al Qaeda side. In June 2002 he is reported to have left Omar, to serve as a translator between foreign fighters who only spoke Arabic, and local Afghan resistance elements who only spoke Pashtun. The video tape this image was taken from was taken in the compound where it was captured, and in the local vicinity. It was taken in June and July 2002 because it shows Omar being instructed in how to build and install IED. Your comments about as-Sahab are completely out of place.
• You wrote: "The point is we know nothing of these images. The US Department of Defence is obviously not the first to have published these images..." We do know the history of this image and the others taken from the video tape. Taken at a militant compound in the summer of 2002; captured when that compound was captured by US special forces on 2002-07-27; prosecution kept arguing that previously undistributed tape be shown, as evidence, during one of Omar's pre-trial hearings in Guantanamo. The Presiding Officer ruled in favor of several of the prosecutions' motions at this pre-trial hearing. He declined to permit the tape to be shown at the hearing, on the grounds that he had already ruled in favor of the motions the playing of the tape was to support. The tape was then distributed to media outlets, including CBS. DoD press officers asserted the decision to distribute the tape to the media was not made by the Prosecution. CBS broadcast clips from the tape during a 60 minutes segment a couple of weeks later. A press release constitutes publication. I suggest the DoD's act of supplying this tape to the media constituted publication -- the first publication.
• I don't think you have left me any choice, but to go to WP:DRV to request deletion review of this image. Geo Swan (talk) 13:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
• done Geo Swan (talk) 13:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

As far as lawyers are concerned in such cases, it is custommary to refrain from doing potentially illegal things until you have the green light from a lawyer. You seem to understand the processus the wrong way round. Furthermore, US lawyers will sometimes refer to purely US frameworks that are not accepted on Commons: see for instance the way in which "Nazi works" are stripped from copyright in the US, and how this argument is dismissed on Commons.

I was not aware of the story of the tapes, thank you for the information. Nevertheless, we need convincing proves that the images were placed in the public domain by their authors; who seized and distributed them later on is not relevant to the issue. From what you say, I have the impression that as far as copyright is concerned, these tapes were broadcasted illegally.

I would like to stress that images on other subjects that cause a fraction of the headaches that these ones do are deleted dayly without a second though, and that I do not understand why images that show Afghan, Iraqi and Pakistani guerrillas are so fiercely defended against all odds. Rama (talk) 13:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Individuals in France, the USA, and Canada, where I live, are granted intellectual property rights by their governments because the governments of those nations believe those intellectual property rights are in the general public interest. Patents and copyrights are believed to give inventors and authors a chance to profit from their creations, so they can afford to continue making creations. Intellectual creations are believed to be in the public interest, because modern western nations believe in "progress". Afghanistan is very backward. And while there are modern elements in its population a large fraction of its population, including the Taliban, Hezbi-Islami Gulduddin, and many of the regional warlords do not believe in "progress". In the last four years Afghanistan could have signed on to international copyright agreements. But the political will to do so is lacking. I suggest this is due to a lack of support for the value of intellectual progress. Geo Swan (talk) 14:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Afghanistan is a category of its own, but that does not settle the case. The tapes could have been published in Pakistan, for instance, in which case Pakistani copyright would be in force. As for Taleban refusing some aspects of progress (frankly, I find that in some cases, their infantry tactics were not so backwards at all), the law still applies to them as to everybody.

In practice, many images taken by Taleban are published in the West without any concern for copyright simply because Taleban are never going to sue anybody. The same goes for a number of other groups. While this is a reasonable tactic to use for a conventional commercial broadcaster, this is not acceptable in the framework of Wikipedia. Rama (talk) 14:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• You wrote: "The tapes could have been published in Pakistan, for instance, in which case Pakistani copyright would be in force." As an administrator you are authorized to speedy delete articles or images under certain limited conditions. If you have a concern over an article or image that is not a clear-cut, obvious case you have the same obligation as any other wikipedia contributor to go through the regular wikipedia channels. Let's be clear here. No Pakistanis played a role in the capture. So the theory that the tape was previously broadcast in Pakistan is no more credible than a "previously broadcast in Argentina" theory, or Congo, or France. Geo Swan (talk) 16:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

No, my point is that the legitimate owners of the tape my have published their content in Pakistan, where they often have rear bases (which they lack in Argentina, Congo and France). I do not understand your insistance on focusing on who stole these tapes and broacasted them later, this is surely not a legitimate use of intellectual property.

As for the the real of administrative deletion, the image in question is certainly a clear-cut, obvious case of underdocumented material, and can be deleted as such. Rama (talk) 16:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• There is no justification for your assumption that a copy of this tape remains in the resistances' hands.
• You write: "I do not understand your insistance on focusing on who stole these tapes and broacasted them later, this is surely not a legitimate use of intellectual property." Are you forgetting that you were the one who asserted: "The US Department of Defence is obviously not the first to have published these images..."
• WRT to your assertion: "the image in question is certainly a clear-cut, obvious case of underdocumented material". As I noted above, you have the advantage of me, because you can see the deleted content, and I can't. But I suggest the appropriate response to missing documentation, or errors in the documentation, is to draw that to the attention of the uploader / contributors -- not summary, clandestine deletion. Geo Swan (talk) 17:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, first of all: I do not have to justify anything. You have to. You are making the statement that this file is in the public domain. That is a strong, legally binding, statement. The burden of the proof is yours, and you failing to conclusively prove your point is enoug to delete the image. That it cannot be proven that the image is not in the Public Domain is irrelevant.

That applies to the "copy of the tape" argument. But even of the tape was the only copy, stealing it and broadcasting it without consent of the author remains illegal, and the work does not magically fall in the public domain for that. Whether or not Afghanistan has copyright laws or not is irrelevant, since the unlawful broadcasting took place outside Afghanistan.

As for the "summary, clandestine" nature of the deletion, I simply want things done without irrelevant red tape. Filling in requests for obvious cases is an obvious waste of time -- not requested by policy for that precise reason. As for warning the user, I actually see little reason to pollute people's talk pages about uploads that they might have made years ago and whose case is not open to debate. That has never been a problem until I stumbled images of Afghan fighters, which, for some reason, seem enjoy a particularly strident defence. Rama (talk) 18:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• WRT to proof and justification, IMO, when you agreed to accept being entrusted with administrator authority you undertook an obligation to use that authority in an open, transparent, responsible, accountable manner. I believe I have proven that this image is in the public domain, over and over again.
• I think you have an obligation to hold yourself accountable for your actions and statements, and show up in the DRV, and either defend them, or openly acknowledge you made mistakes.
• Please be advised that your argument, above, that Pakistani law would apply to images taken in Afghanistan, if they were first published in Afghanistan seems the opposite of what you wrote on February 12th about the copyright status of images of the corpses of the Goebbels children. Back then you wrote that German law would apply to images taken in Germany even if the images were first published in the Soviet Union. You are allowed to change your mind. But, in the interest of clarity, may I suggest you say so, when you recognized you have changed your mind? Geo Swan (talk) 21:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe that you display an overly enthusiastic attitude towards what you call "accountability". It would be appropriate towards, say, policemen shooting people in a democracy; but this is not a democracy, and it is copyvios, not people, that are at stake. Notably, people are supposed innocent until proven guilty, while images are supposed copyrighted until proven Free. Which is not the case here. One is not automatically right simply because one poses as defying some form of authority.

The example that I have given with the Pakistani publication is just that, an example. The issue at hand is that it is not proven that the images are Free; please focus on the moon rather than on the finger. But to answer your question, images taken in Afghanistan and published in Pakistan would, as far as I know, be ruled by Pakistani laws, not Afghan laws. As for the Soviet thing, stealing copies of images does not yield a transfer of their rights, the Soviet publishing them would thus be a simple breach of copyright. It is similar to the problem at hand: do we have indications that the image is claimed for Public Domain for any other reason that it has been published by the US military? The US military have no rights to license the image themselves. Rama (talk) 23:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:GermanMedicsGas1915.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:GermanMedicsGas1915.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.

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 02:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Grand Port images

Hi, I've been asked some questions about some of the images you have added to the article Battle of Grand Port at its FAC (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Grand Port/archive1) and I was wondering if you could help me with them (you may not have added all of them, but you may know something relevant). The first is your excellent map File:Battle of Grand Port.svg, for which the information on where you got the original map from is required, and the second is File:GrandPort2.jpg, for which more information on the authour A. D'Etroyer is required. Can you help? Many thanks,--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Saddly, I do not have information about d'Etroyer.

The map was made using information found in a French book on the operations around Ile de France and La Réunion. I do not have it handy at the moment, but should be able to provide the exact references next week.

Cheers! Rama (talk) 08:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much!--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Linhof

A tag has been placed on Linhof, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Deserted Cities 04:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

For your attention

Hi there, hope you are doing well. I have begun work on a revised article on the Battle of the Nile, and although it will be some weeks before it is ready, I though you might be able to assist with some of the French officers listed at User:Jackyd101/Workbox7. I am unsure which of those without links are notable, but was wondering if you could sort out articles on those that are and let me know which are not? There is obviously no rush with this, but I would be very interested to see the results of those articles that you can work on. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

some at least of these people are probably notable enough to warrant an article. Soleil is likely the best example. Purchasing a more or less complete dictionnary of Navy officers has been on my mind for some time; if I ever find something of the sort, I'll let you know, it would considerably speed and ease such endeavours.

Thank you and cheers! Rama (talk) 11:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Displacement of La Sensible

Dear Rama
I'm afraid there's something wrong with the displacement of French frigate Sensible (1788) and therefore the rest of the Magicienne class frigate articles (good work, by the way). Victory, a 100-gun ship-of-the-line only displaced 3,556 tonnes, so a figure of 5,260 tonnes fully loaded just doesn't make any sense. I can't find any references for it - perhaps you have a source? Yours, Shem (talk) 16:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll check this in the Dictionnaire. Agreed of course about the 5,260 tonnes fully loaded, that would make a 4600 tonnes of cargo for a 600 tonnes ship, not very likely. Cheers! Rama (talk) 09:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The Dictionnaire gives a figure of 600 tonnes for Sensible and her sister-ships (apart from 960 tonnes for Magicienne herself, maybe a typo). Cheers! Rama (talk) 22:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Uzbin

I seem to recall we had some spats over Uzbin before, but I just wanted to let you know I think you're doing fantastic work on it right now - tonnes of new information. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 16:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Getopt

I have nominated Getopt, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Getopt. 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.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. MacMed^talk_stalk 20:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding File:Usama bin laden.jpg

Hi - I noticed you deleted this file. Can you give me specifics on the deletion, specifically under which subcriterion of F7 it was deleted? Thanks, Ray^Talk 16:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the image is replaceable by a Free image. Rama (talk) 16:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

That's sort of the problem - I'm having trouble finding one. Can you help? Ray^Talk 16:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Bin laden dibujo.jpg. Rama (talk) 16:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a cartoon caricature. I wouldn't want to put that in a biography - wouldn't be encyclopedic, and doesn't have anything like the use value of the original. Would it be possible to restore the original? Ray^Talk 17:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that's a Free alternative. Whether it is better or worse than unfree versions is irrelevant, a Fair Use claim cannot be made. If you are unsatisfied with this cartoon, which is commandable, I suggest that you draw a better portrait, or request a photographer to publish a portrait under a Free licence. Rama (talk) 17:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I think I've found another alternative. It's not great, but .... Thanks for your help. Cheers, Ray^Talk 17:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Translated articles

Hi, Rama

When you've translated an article from a foreign Wikipedia, as you did with Brigade La Fayette, please add {{translated}} to the article's talk page (together with the language code and the article name, so in that case it would be {{translated|fr|Brigade La Fayette}}. The reason that's important is in order to comply with our content licencing policy.

Cheers—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I never quite know what is exactly needed, so I oscillate between listing the authors by hand, which is a hassle, and putting a note in the edit summary. Now I know what to do. Cheers! Rama (talk) 17:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

EIT

A single revert by an anonymous IP (who I will assume is not you) does not nullify pages of discussion in talk. Your arguments have been repeated and rejected. To summarize: Enhanced Interrogation is no more a "euphemism" than Department of Homeland Security, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, or Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act are "euphemisms". EIT includes numerous proposals, some of which are controversially called torture, some not, a situation described very clearly in the second paragraph. To say EIT is a euphemism for torture is, I maintain, obviously in bad faith. It would make no more sense to say constable is a euphemism for "civil rights violator" because there is a law which allows overbroad police authority. You know all this, you have known all this, and you come off as pushing an agenda. Your edits manifestly introduce bias into the article in violation of talk page consensus. Tyuia (talk) 18:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The so-called "Enhanced Interrogation techniques", a term that calls back, verbatim, to the Nazi era, include techniques that are uncontroversially called torture by all competent parties. This is less controversial than some of the findings of the Nuremberg Tribunal -- and nobody would claim that stating these findings asfacts "manifestly introduce bias".

I am willing to compromising on the term "euphemism", but that the so-called "Enhanced Interrogation techniques" are indeed plain torture in not a matter of debat, and it is our duty, per a number of Wikipedia policies, to state it in the lead of the article. Rama (talk) 08:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Article move

Your move of French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle (R91) has been reverted per the naming conventions at WP:NC-SHIPS. Please do not move the article again without discussing it first. -MBK₀₀₄ 21:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, I left you this message before I took a look at the talk page. Regardless, your reading of the naming conventions is flawed and will not hold scrutiny at WT:SHIPS. If there are vessels named the way you think it should be they will be moved to the correct name in time as Bellhalla gets around to them with his massive categorization efforts. -MBK₀₀₄ 21:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Well I am not agreed with you. I have never seen a ship named with [nation]+[type]+[name]+[hull number] before, and the Ship Naming Convention do not support your claim. The hull number and name are enough to unambigously identify a ship, your convention is thus redundent.

Furthermore, you are missing a good opportunity to aleviate the problem of conflicting conventions across navies. To cite an example on WP:NC-SHIPS, Admiral Kuznetsov is not an "aircraft carrier", but an "aviation cruiser"; we call it an "aircraft carrier" because of similarities with Western carriers, but on the same time we servilely parrot the grandiose USAyan claims about "super-carriers". That is POV.

This is a bloated and redundent convention, and also flashpoint for POV issues that can be bypassed in a very simple manner, without any inconvenient whatsoever. Rama (talk) 08:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Re:Battalion

No problem...I was on a typo patrol of that word. Thanks! WordyGirl90 01:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Rama: Greetings from Southport, N.C. Can't find your e-mail address; reading you bio. there were many things I wanted to run by you; perhaps a third of which might interest you. Should you want to e-mail me: focusoninfinity@hotmail.com Prior to seeing you bio. I simply wanted you to add the French ship "Pelican" to the other two "Pelicans", one old, one new. I am in the La Societe des Filles du Roi on French-Canadian ancestress Mme. Marguerite Roussel Burel, a Canadian "King's Daughter" by her first marriage to Canadian soldier (Ducheron?). However I descend her second husband Etienne Burel, who called it's (governor?) currupt. After, I think a hearing in France, the government agreed, and he and wife were appointed escorts from France aboard the ship "Pelican" with which they arrived old up-river Mobile 1704 with a load of ex-covenant girls, "King's Daughters"; in old Mobile called "Pelican Girls" (New Orleans got a ship's load of Paris prostitutes for future wives). Three of the "Pelican Girls" were their daughters: I descend Jeanne Louis Burel b1683 who 1704 Mobile wed Canadian marine Maj. Francoise Trudeau who 1702 built old Mobile's first fort. The LtGov of Upper Louisiana at St. Louis, I think it was Spanish cavalry service LtCol Zenon Trudeau(?) is his descendant also. Mme. Trudeau's sister Genivieve Burel, b1686, wed ex-Canadian Claude Trapagagnier, and sister Marguerite Burel, b1688, wed ex-Canadian Gilbert Dardenne (I know descendants of both). Burel was old Mobile's first inn keeper. Maj. Trudeau's father, Etienne Trudeau's fortified stone home still stands, today a good Montreal eatery, I think back in Trudeau family hands? Many other items; for example you are welcome to my late father (Bell Lab's engr.) not very important letter from Werner von Broun, gratis--if I can find it? My old Eastern Air Lines co-worker's father was one of the FBI agents that lived on von Braun's (cul-de-sac?)--a cheap form of added protection? In N.J. our one house away neighber was Dr. Lester Germer who did the "Germer Experiment" which dad explained to me three times as a child, but I couldn't grasp it. Dr. Max George Bodmer, Bell Lab's electronics physicist rented our N.J. home from dad, untill we moved in. As a kid (b1943) I answered the front door to two FBI agents. Dad sent me upstairs, but I snuck down to listen. They said Mr. Olson's had dad's phone number in his pocket when he "fell" from the N.Y.C. skyscraper. Why? I'd never heard of the word "pretext" then but sensed it. Dad (no street smarts) had no notion; the FBI quickly switched to their real interest, Bodmer; dad said the heir of a rich Swiss wine family. Was Bodmer a communist? About a decade ago I tracked Bodmer down in Switzerland and e-mailed him; had he known the FBI was checking on him then. He e-mailed back, yeh his friends kept him posted on the FBI. He later discovered the FBI even went to his Swiss childhood milkman who delivered milk by dog and cart; had little Max shown any childhood pinko tendencies? This may interest you: Max said he was then practical application commercially developing his computer chip patents on useing the chips; I think like we use in passports, and Max said being read at a distance? Lots more stuff if interested. E-mail me or visit focusoninfinity at Linked-In. Possibly my Navy photo with Crown Graphic is the one with the computer code in it? Jim P.S. Feel free to delete all, or some of this! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.56.199.91 (talk) 04:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Help with a translation

Hi, I was wondering if you could give me a hand with a translation. William James, as was the habit with 19th century historians, likes to quote in French without giving a translation. The passages are from the siege of Malta, and are both responses to demands by British commanders that the French garrison surrender.

The first is "Vous avez, sans doute, oublié que des Français sont dans la place. Le sort des habitans ne vous regarde pointe. Quant à votre sommation, les soldats français ne sont point habitués à ce style", to which the closest I could get was "You, undoubtably, have forgotten that the French hold this place. The fate of the natives is not for you to decide In summation, French soldiers are not accustomed to this style [of behaviour]".

The second is "Jaloux de mériter l'estime de votre nation, comme vous recherchez celle de la nôtre, nous sommes résolus défendre cette fortresse jusqu'à l'extrémité" which I got as "Keen to deserve the esteem your nation, as you seek that of ours, we are resolved to defend this fortress until the end".

I am aware that my French is not very good, and I am not satisified with my own efforts, but I was wondering if you might be able to make a better job of it than I have? If you are too busy then don't worry about it. Regards, --Jackyd101 (talk) 00:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

A slight correction, the first quote should read "Le sort des habitants ne vous regarde point". I would have translated as "You might have forgotten that the French hold the place. The fate of the inhabitants is none of your concern. As for your ultimatum, French soldiers are not accustomed to such a tone".

Your second translation is excellent and I could hardly improve it. You should do better justice to your French!

Cheers! Rama (talk) 11:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou very much (I did use a dictionary). Your assistance was much appreciated. --Jackyd101 (talk) 22:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Maurice Vaïsse

Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Maurice Vaïsse. Our verifiability policy requires that all content be cited to a reliable source. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

— Rama (talk) 10:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Nakheel Tower.jpg

I noticed you speedily deleted this image (F7: Violates non-free use policy). I didn't upload the image and I didn't see any related notices/tags or discussion, but I wonder if you could explain which part of WP:CSD#F7 it fell foul of. I also wonder if it would be possible to recover that image so I may work on an improved fair-use rationale. Thanks. Astronaut (talk) 00:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

This image is not impossible to replace. It was just some random copyrighted impression, rather than one precise work being discussed, like Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima for instance. As far as I know, File:Nakheel Tower.jpg is not particularly notable, so it is inherently not suitable for fair use claims. The solution is for somebody to produce a Free image from the specifications of the building. Rama (talk) 13:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree. To claim the image was a "random copyrighted impression" is not true; there's nothing "random" about it - it appears on the developers website. To claim a design for what may become the world's tallest building is "not particularly notable" is also incorrect. And neither excuse is something that makes it "inherently not suitable for fair use". Similar images, for example File:Freedom Tower New.jpg, are currently used on other "proposed" building articles and it is quite reasonably argued that they are not replaceable by free images because that would be a potential copyright violation. So, I would greatful if you can say how the image was tagged before you deleted it: {{Di-replaceable fair use}} or {{Di-disputed fair use rationale}}. Thanks. Astronaut (talk) 16:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

It is "random" in the sense that it is not the image itself that is being discussed. Of course the image is chosen as to reflect the designers' views and to represent the building. Nevertheless, this image could easily be replaced by any other image of the same building, which automatically voids the "fair use" claim.

Contrast this, again, with the example of Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, where the image itself (not what it represents) is being discussed and has an intrinsically historical value (i.e., again, for itself rather than for what is represents).

The image was not taggged before I deleted it, I performed a speedy deletion in accordance with image deletion policy on obvious cases of copyright violation.

Thank you for pointing to other similar erroneous claims, I will correct them as well. Rama (talk) 10:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

So, you are going round deleting fair-use images with no discussion what-so-ever. That hardly seems to be in the spirit of consensus. Astronaut (talk) 11:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I delete obvious cases of copyright violation without discussion, as ruled by policies for images, since we are a Free and most of all legal encyclopedia. "Wikipedia Consensus" that goes against the law has no value of any kind, we cannot vote things into fair use (or, often, into the public domain) simply because we fancy them. Rama (talk) 11:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

So is there any point in writing fair-use rationales? I certainly felt the rationale provided on File:Freedom Tower New.jpg was an excellent one, making a very good point about replacability; that is why I mentioned it in this discussion. Since your concern appears to be about replacability, the section of WP:CSD#F7 that applies is the second point - you should tag it {{subst:rfu}} and wait two days. By your speedy delete actions, no has the opportunity to argue the case with you, to improve the rationale, or anything... you just delete it. Astronaut (talk) 11:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair Use claims can be made for works that are being discussed for themselves (for instance Raising the Flag in Iwo Jima). Fair Use cannot, in any circumstances, be claimed for purely decorative purposes. That notably includes photographs of recently dead people.

The replacability argument for File:Freedom Tower New.jpg was totally moot.

• while File:Freedom Tower New.jpg was proeminantly displayed at the very top of the article, File:FREedom TOWER.JPG, an image from Wikimedia Commons, under GFDL and cc-by-sa-all licences, was displayed further in the text. That is a very blatant illustration that there are alternatives to File:Freedom Tower New.jpg, and that in effect, people simply snatch the prettiest images that they fancy and claim them as "Fair Use", without bothering either to make it low-resolution (824×1,588 is not low-resolution), not to check whether Free alternatives do in fact exist.
• No argument states why this particular image must be the one that illustrates the article. Indeed, I doubt that it was in anyone's mind that no other image could do
• The image is not irreplaceable. I could make a replacement easily enough.

As I said, I delete blatant violations of copyright, for which the policy allow immediate deletion. As for "has the opportunity to argue the case with you", improving bogus arguments is futile when the image cannot be claimed for Fair Use. Rama (talk) 11:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you can help me here: I am having difficulty finding where the policy says "Fair Use cannot, in any circumstances, be claimed for purely decorative purposes"; nor can I find an argument that the showing the design of a building that is not yet completed is simple "decoration", when it is in fact an important part of the discussion of a building's design. And I cannot find any definition of low or high resolution in the policy (though I admit 824*1588 seems too large to me, it could have easily been reduced in size in a couple of minutes).

I'm curious though, if there was a free image later in the article that could have served as a replacement (File:FREedom TOWER.JPG), why did you delete that as well?

If you think you can find free images of the same buildings or can create your own replacement image, I invite you to try. Bear in mind that neither of these buildings has been constructed yet, so there is no building to photograph. To create your own equivalent replacement you would need access to the architect's copyrighted design. They are much harder to obtain than the artists rendering provided by the architect or developer.

Finally, I am extremely concerned by your suggestion that the images were "blatant violations of copyright" when at least one of them had a good fair-use rationale attached. That accusation seems to carry with it a lot of power to immediately delete something just because you believe the "image cannot be claimed for Fair Use". Astronaut (talk) 13:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

1) Google '"Fair use" decorative' and enjoy.

2) I told you, at lengths, what I meant by the contrast between Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima and this file. If you do now want to understand, that's too bad for you, but stop littering my talk page.

3) If you can feel yourself that 824*1588 is too large, what good does it do to ask why it is?

4) File:FREedom TOWER.JPG was a copyvio, mistakenly uploaded on Commons as a Free image. The point is not whether that image was Free or not (it was not), it is that even when images are available from Commons, people don't care to review their "irreplaceable" statements. That proves that Fair Use claims are made as some sort of automatic "snatch-what-you-want" claims rather than legitimate claims.

5) How do you think the images I deleted were made? Nothing prevents you from using the same techniques -- 3D imagery, photo editing -- to obtain the same effects. Whether you do not out of laziness or incompetence is irrelevant, nothing prevents you from doing it. We do not snatch copyrighted material just because it is better than what we do.

6) None of the images had good fair use claims, since they are not irreplaceable. Yes, the accusation carries the powers given to admins by image policy. Rama (talk) 13:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to litter your talk page again, but I feel the discussion is not yet over.

I see no evidence to support "Fair Use cannot, in any circumstances, be claimed for purely decorative purposes" in the Wikipedia policy or the associated guideline. But that point is moot if you accept the argument that the images were not being used for decorative purposes.

When I asked about a definition of low or high resolution, I was hoping you would give your opinion rather than belittle my opinion.

It is not laziness or incompetence which prevents me from obtaining the architect's copyrighted designs. Even if I had the necessary tools, architectural training, and skills to put it all together, I would still not be able to produce an equivalent free image - the plans are simply not available to members of the public. Due to the impossibility of being able to create a free image, the images cannot therefore be replaced. Astronaut (talk) 14:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, what exactly would you do if a Free image was in fact produced, after protesting for so long that the deed is impossible? Rama (talk) 14:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course, I would happily apologise for being so certain that it was impossible. Astronaut (talk) 17:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

There you go, then: File:Nakheel tower.svg. Rama (talk) 18:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

As promised, I apologise for stating such things are impossible, and thank you for taking the time to produce this. I assume you based your image on the architect's plans in order to get an accurate rendering, so now I'm curious, how did you get access to the plans? Astronaut (talk) 15:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, let me commend your rectitude; it is not so common a quality that I could afford not to salute it when I see it.

I did not use plans not anything that cannot be found easily over the Internet -- actually the plans themselves would be overwhelming and ill-suited to this simple task. I simply collected a number of renderings and drawings to get an idea of what the thing looks like, and produced the schematics from this. It is certainly a very crude drawing, but it does give an idea of the general layout. Rama (talk) 15:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. This has certainly inspired me. I have just downloaded Inkscape, the same software I believe you used, and will have a go at producing an image to replace the deleted File:Freedom Tower New.jpg. One last question: How can readers be assured that my image would be an accurate rendering of the design? Astronaut (talk) 16:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I used Inkscape. Blender is a good thing for more complex scenes, but you'll spend much more time on a 3D scence than on vector schematics.

I've had a go at the "Freedom Tower", it's at File:Freedom Tower.svg, but it is quite crude and can be improved, so I look forwards to seeing what you come up with.

As for the accuracy of the rendering, it's like with the articles, there's no telling, and critical sense is still de rigueur. Note that it is the same thing, to some extend, for photographs: careful selection of lenses, ligthening etc. can produce quite "POV" photographs -- and after a bit of Gimp, the possibilities are endless, of course.

Cheers! Rama (talk) 17:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Chicago Spire.jpg

I noticed you speedy deleted File:Chicago Spire.jpg saying "F7: Violates non-free use policy". Reading the post above it seems as if you are going through several similiar images and deleting them. While I'm not an admin, I do believe this image should have not been deleted and did not violate non-free use policy. I refer you to File talk:Chicago Spire.jpg where 2 users (1 was me) and an administrator gained consensus deciding the image was not replaceable (another user disagreed). I request you restore the file and gain consensus on deletion instead of just doing a speedy delete and seemingly ignoring prior consensus. Thanks. DR04 (talk) 21:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, welcome! You will be the first customer for my new User:Rama/Fair use page. Good reading. Rama (talk) 22:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting - my excuse would be incompetence and laziness although that isn't completely accurate. I mean I am volunteering my time on Wikipedia and have prioritized other things in my life that wouldn't allow me time to learn 3D modeling (oh and I'm not interested in it). So laziness, prioritization whatever definition you want to label me as thats fine I guess. But, in all seriousness you make some very interesting points. But I think there is one critical flaw with that page. If we have experts (or amateurs) on Wikipedia recreate 3D modeling they are essentially recreating something already protected by copyright.

Let me elaborate and provide an example. A few years ago I created my own version of a seal for a US municipality. I spent a great deal of time trying to recreate it so that there would be an uncopyrighted version of it - I made sure I didn't use any of the copyrighted material to create it. But, in the end, it didn't matter, I was simply recreating a copyrighted work. The same thing applies here. A 3D model can be created (an inaccurate one actually already exists on the subject in question), but if we are trying at all to be accurate in creating these renderings as you recommend then we are setting ourselves up for a contradiction. As soon as we finish the modelings the copyright holder could sue Wikipedia or the author of the new renderings for copyright infringement.

A much safer, IMO legal situation would simply to be use the renderings as provided by the architect (and I actually went through a great deal of work to get that permission). It seems Wikipedia is more at risk if we create our own renderings of a copyrighted design and then post them as "our own."

Do you see my point here? Again, I urge you to open this up for discussion where I and other editors and admins can comment on this to come up with consensus. While the subpage you sent me to was interesting and helpful and elements of it may eventually become Wikipedia policy, it isn't now - it simply is your interpretation of fair use. I'm betting many people, like me, would have issues with elements of your interpretation.

In short, why don't we keep this simple? Again, I feel like your decision to speedy delete was to rash considering the issue was discussed by other users and an administer. We came to consensus and you disregarded that consensus based on your own interpretation which I'm saying I disagree with (not completely, just parts) and am betting other users would disagree with as well.

So, again, I propose that you restore the image and instead propose it for deletion. Users and admins can then give their input. As the editor above (for the other media in question) pointed out you don't seem to place much emphasis on first gaining consensus. That image deserved a discussion and should have never been speedily deleted. If it is discussed and decided to be deleted I would be much happier then just speedly deleting it based on one admin (you) alone, considering another admin and other users disagree with you. Does that sound like a plan? Restore, nominate for deletion, and discuss? It seems reasonable to me, even if in the end people do agree with you. I understand your an admin, but I've seen plenty of issues like this throughout my time on Wikipedia as being best decided by obtaining consensus, not by individuals making "buck stops here" fast decisions. So can we at least nominate and dicuss first? If not I understand, your an admin and I'm just a lowly editor - I won't hold it against you (too much ;) ). DR04 (talk) 01:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with DR04 here: the 2007 discussion was closed as "fair use permitted" so it's probably unwise to unilaterally reverse that decision with a speedy delete. –xeno^talk 01:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussions are not votes, and I will happily unilaterally reverse any discussion whose outcome is evidently wrong -- as this one was since Free material was not only theorically possible to obtain, but actually available. Rama (talk) 09:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

You seem to think you are the only one who is right and are unwilling to look at other interpretations of these copyright policies and laws as they apply to Wikipedia. Just because you think that the discussion outcome was "evidently wrong" doesn't mean it is. Again, another administrator and 2 users disagree with your assessment. Obviously this needs to be discussed further and it seems as if you don't want that to happen. Shame - I do believe consensus is what helps Wikipedia users (and admins) make decisions on important policy matters just as this and its even sadder that an administrator (you) doesn't want anything to do with that. We shouldn't be having this discussion on your talk page. I sincerely hope you change your mind and allow your fellow editors to discuss this openly on a proposed deletion page - where such a discussion belongs. You were out of line to speedily delete that image without discussion where several other users disagree with your assessment. DR04 (talk) 15:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry one other comment - case in point I noticed you uploaded your own version of the tower, which I like by the way. But your rendering is a copyright infringement. Remember, these aren't just photographs. These are architectural desings. By creating your own version of it you are simply recreating protected work. You cannot call that image your own, because its not. You have looked at a design, created your own version of it and then published as "self made". It isn't self made. The design you recreated is worth millions of dollars. Sure, it might be your own IMAGE of it, but, again, with buildings the designs are copyrighted as well - not just the images. Anyway, I'd rather have this discussion on a nomination page not on your talk page. So going back to the previous post? Can we do that? DR04 (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that is a very good point that I failed to notice in my discussion above. Considering the large number of recent deletions of this type of image, I think it is time these discussions were opened to a wider field. Astronaut (talk) 04:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

This is a very good question. I refer you to § 120. Scope of exclusive rights in architectural works [2]:

I don't think Astronaut was asking a question, I think he was saying we need to open this up for discussion. You keep pointing us to internal and external links showing us policies and laws on copyright which we already understand. Rama, the issue isn't with us being aware of these policies. It is our disagreement with you on their application to these images - something which needs to be discussed openly. DR04 (talk) 15:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

“ (a) Pictorial Representations Permitted.— The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place. ”

Rama (talk) 09:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Rama, I can't speak to the other articles but the Chicago Spire isn't constructed yet. It is a giant hole in the ground. That statement does not apply to the Spire. But again, this isn't a discussion I wan't to have on your talk page. It belongs on a proposed deletion page where ALL editors can discuss it. DR04 (talk) 15:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Rama I'm not going to continue to discuss this with you here - this discussion doesn't belong here. Either restore the image, propose deletion, and allow editors to gain consensus on the application of copyright law and policies on these images or ignore the multiple users who disagree with you and just stick to your own interpretation. The fact that multiple editors and administrators disagree with your assessment should be throwing up red flags in your head, but I guess you are ignoring those. Consensus is what builds Wikipedia on these contentious issues. IMO it is not appropriate for administrators to ignore that fundamental. It is contrary to the interests of the Wikipedia community. DR04 (talk) 15:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

No. Free alternatives do exist (File:Chicago Spire early project.jpg, File:Chicago spire.svg), proving beyond any possible doubt that the "irreplacibility" clause is not fulfilled -- it wasn't before, but now it is impossible to even argue that it was.

Incorrect. The early project image is inaccurate and is therefore not an alternative for the main page of the article (it is used as a representation of an early desing. We already had this discussion on the talk page so I won't bring it up here again. The image you created is a copyright violation of an unbuilt building, but I won't throw up a deletion tag until this matter gets resolved - well maybe it wont because your an admin and I'm just an editor and I have no authority here. DR04 (talk) 16:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not care whether people disagree with me or not, this is not a democracy. If you want to vote reality out of existence, do that in a sandbox. I am very obviously right, and no matter of how many people are wrong and disagree with me, they are still wrong.

Consensus is a tool to elvolve solutions in problematic cases. It is not an end in itself; and it supposed to be a way to do things, certainly not something that prevents people from doing what must be done. Rama (talk) 16:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia may not be a democracy, but it is a community. When other users and administrators disagree with you, it isn't appropriate for you to completely disregard their opinions and consensus. While in the end you may be right, you are not "very obviously right", and this is why this image deserves a discussion. Please don't take this personally - you have contributed so much to this project, and for that I'm very thankful - but I do feel this deletion merits a discussion, something you seem unwilling to allow for. So I'm going to take this matter to an Administrator Review and see if I can't find additional people (beyond the admins and users on your talk page and the images talk page) who believe this decision deserves more open discussion. DR04 (talk) 16:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Never mind. That old system no longer exists. So Rama, you get what you want - the buck stops with you. I just wanted to say that other administrators and users disagree with your assessment and that I feel you have stepped out of line as an administrator by ignoring consensus and discussion when it was deserved. DR04 (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a community either it is a project to write an encyclopedia. Nothing else. I do not have any more authority than you have, I just happen to know what I am talking about.

Ignoring consensus that is blattently wrong is normal. We do not discuss for the sake of discussion, but to come to a conclusion. When the question is whether a Free image could possibly exist when in fact it does, the conclusion is obvious and discussion is a meaningless waste of time. Rama (talk) 16:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow, Wikipedia is not a community? I'll disagree with you on that any day. Yes I agree completely, we discuss for the sake of coming to a conclusion - something you are unwilling to do. Also, this is not a waste of time. Just because YOU are unwilling to discuss something openly and I do doesn't mean its a waste of time. Let's take a look at the facts here:

• One user (me) believes there are no free alternatives and a deletion at least merits a discussion, NOT a speedly deletion.
• Another user (User:CBM) believed there were free alternative but at least discussed the issue instead of just speedily deleting it.
• Another user (User:Wikidemo) believed "this is a textbook case of permissible free use. Once the building is built it will be a textbook case of replaceability"
• Another administrator (User:Quadell) believed "the image is not replaceable, since the building does not exist at this time".
• Another user (User:Astronaut) Believes this image deletion deserves a discussion.
• Another administrator (User:Xeno) stated "it's probably unwise to unilaterally reverse [a previous] decision with a speedy delete"

OK, basically ALL of the people above are saying it deserves a discussion on a proposed deletion page (I count 6) and one person (I count one, you) believe it doesn't deserve a discussion an a proposed deletion page. And yes, you do have more authority than me. You have the authority to speedily delete the image without having a discussion first. I do not have that authority. So, again, Rama, I'll ask - will you please stop being so stubborn about you being the only correct one, stop ignoring the other users and admins and allow the policy of copyright to be discussed as applicable to this image? DR04 (talk) 16:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a community. Facebook is a community, Flickr is a community, Wikipedia is not. It has, as a corrolary to the way it works, some features of a community. But it is not a community. Everytime the "community" comes in the way of the ultimate goal, which is writing an encyclopedia, it must be stepped on mercilessly.

Of the six people, four want a discussion for the sake of discussion. That falls foul of several WP:NOT -- probably "democracy" ("Don't vote on everything") and "bureaucracy" ("rules are not the purpose of the community"). Of the other two, one is clueless ("textbook case of permissible free use" -- and it's not nice to bring this one up because it has been years and it probably does not reflect what its author would say now); and the other one ("not replaceable, since the building does not exist at this time") is either completely irrelevant, or a logical fallacy (see [3]).

I do not mean to give you a course in Bayesian decision process, but if you fail to understand that something must necessarily be possible if it has in fact happened, you probably lack the cognitive ability to contribute to Wikipedia. I think that you do not, but should simply back down, consider the situation from a distance, and realise how futile this conversation is. Rama (talk) 17:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The definition of what Wikipedia is not the focus of my argument.

Again, Rama, it is your statement that these people are wrong. I find it laughable that you say there is a possibility I'm suffering from a lack of cognitive ability. Rama, I'm the one willing to discuss openly with other editors and accept the conclusion of that consensus. You, on the other hand, are probably experiencing a bit of overconfidence effect - ironically also a cognitive phenomenon. You are unwilling to discuss openly (at an appropropiate location) something that many editors, as I have shown above, disagree with you on.

If you are so confident in your opinion being correct, then whats the harm in allowing others to discuss it? Obviously people disagree with you and your conclusion is not necessarily the correct one. That is NOT dicsussion for the point of discussion. I think I've been quite clear with this.

This conversation is only futile because your an admin, im an editor and there is nothing I can do about this. If I were an admin I would undelete the image, and instead propose for deletion so that ALL editors can discuss and come to a conclusion that EVERYONE (not just you) agree on. DR04 (talk) 17:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

For the sake of time Rama, just answer this question. Are you willing to undelete the image, propose it for deletion and allow discussion or no? A yes or no will do - I think we have presented enough of our points... DR04 (talk) 17:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Based on how quickly you responded earlier, your lack of response now, and your previous comments I'll assume you won't. DR04 (talk) 19:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

If you do not mind, I do things outside of Wikipedia, in life.

As for restoring the image, no I will not. Did you consider that you are asking me to put up an image for which I know the "fair use" claim to be bogus, and that this is illegal? Rama (talk) 21:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. As you know, I strongly disagree with your claims that the fair use is bogus and that it is illegal, but you probably should present your perspective, if you feel so strongly, at the ANI. Thanks again for your response. DR04 (talk) 23:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, almost forgot to include this - Hello, Rama. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

• FYI –xeno^talk 19:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• A free alternative does not exist. You have attempted to release a copyright violation into the public domain. See the deletion discussion at commons. –xeno^talk 14:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

1) A Free alternative does exist, per § 120. Scope of exclusive rights in architectural works [4]. I do not understand where you gathered the idea that anything was going to be the Public Domain, that might be a symptom that you have very little understanding of how Free licences work.

2) Even if a Free alternative did not exist, that would not be a proof that a Free alternative cannot exist. In this case, the file is simply a random file taken amongst a number of files in a portefolio, and any other could have done, indicating that the file is indeed replaceable, and is improperly claimed for Fair Use. Rama (talk) 14:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

(1) see the deletion discussion at commons. (2) a) Further to 1, a free alternative cannot exist until the building is constructed and b) replaceability means replace with a free image, not another unfree one. –xeno^talk 14:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

1) The discussion at Commons is a device for a collective campain to promote bogus Fair Use claims on Wikipedia, of which you are a part, and is being hijacked by a handful of people who have little understanding of the issue and propose arguments in bad faith.

2) Where did you gather that replaceability means replace with a Free image? Rama (talk) 15:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

1) You would do well to assume good faith rather than accusing bad. The discussion at Commons seeks to rectify what I believe to be a copyright violation.

2) What would be the point of replacing it? (See Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria) –xeno^talk 15:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

1) The discussion at Commons seeks to remove an obstacle to the massive use of bogus "fair use" claims and nothing else. Evidence of that is your previous lack of interest in protecting copyright, notably threatened by the use of these bogus "fair use" claims.

2) That is neither here nor there. The problem is that you are claiming some random image as "fair use", just because it would make a webpage nicer, while "fair use" is appropriate only for critical discussion of the very image. Rama (talk) 15:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I am interested in putting an end to your out-of-process deletions borne of a point-of-view towards fair use that does not seem to dovetail with the community's. After the Commons debate runs its course, the decision will guide me in whether to restore the files you have recently deleted for unbuilt buildings. And should your approach continue, an RFC may be initiated to gather community opinion as to your actions. –xeno^talk 15:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Right, so you proposed the image for deletion on Commons for political reasons and not on copyright concerns. Thank you, I rest my case. Rama (talk) 15:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't propose it for deletion, and I am indeed concerned about the copyright. Please do try to assume good faith. –xeno^talk 15:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You and your lot. How can I assume good faith when you are so incredibly picky as to twist and game US law when it is convenient for you, and be so incredibly cavalier with Fair Use claims that are evidently bogus? I am very willing to assume good faith, but you are not helping neither in deed nor in words. Rama (talk) 15:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not part of Xeno's "lot". You seem to be misconstruing everyone's purpose here. The reason for all my actions comes down to this - I believe the copyrighted image on Wikipedia is fair use. I also believe that the image you created is (in your own words) "illegal" because it is a recreation of a copyrighted work that you are not giving credit. As I have acknowledged before, if consensus was that the copyrighted Chicago Spire image was not fair use, I would have accepted it. But I, and obviously several others, think it is fair use. I don't want to get into another discussion here about reasons for this - I only wished to share with you my intentions. This is not a conspiracy against you. It is simply a disagreement which I have brought to the attention of others in this community of users so that a more accurate decision can be made - just because you are think you are right, doesn't mean you actually are - we work together to improve this project. As an administrator pointed out, there is no Wikimedia Foundation policy on this, therefore we must rely on the consensus of the community to make these decisions. That is all I wanted from the start and that is all I'll ever want in controversial matters such as these. DR04 (talk) 16:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You are quite correct there, and things have become much more complicated than they were, with the deletion request on Commons. Therefore, I am very willing to accept that I might not be correct in my assessements -- something which I am not willing to admit when things are about whether it is possible to make a Free replacement, when on the same time one is actually available.

That being said, I strongly feel that the Fair Use regulations are quite explicite on how little things are admissible, and that a vaste majority of the images claimed as "Fair Use" are ignoring these rules. I furthermore think that some people, after being made aware of the rules, deliberately attempt to twist them and empty them of all their meaning in an attempt to upload as much non-Free material as possible. That must be resisted.

And claiming "Fair Use" on the images that are discussed here is not admissible, whether a Free alternative exists or not. I expected to make the matter clear-cut and impossible to argue further by actually providing Free alternatives; I see that this has probably failed, and has had the drawback of shifting attention to this, from the emptiness of the Fair use claims. That does not make these claims any less void than they were before. Rama (talk) 17:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Rama. I note from your userpage that your native language is French. Although your English is far better than my French, you seem to be having an issue with it where s120 is concerned, as it specifically refers to an architectural work which has been constructed, and can therefore be seen from a public place. "Constructed" in this sentence means that the steel erectors, bricklayers etc have done their work and the building is standing, so it can be seen from a public place. It doesn't mean 'designed' or 'planned'. Also, you need to look at s106, as this pertains to creating works which are derivatives of the architect's plans or of an 'artist's impression' commissioned by the architect. Hope this helps. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding replaceability, I wonder if it is a similar issue. To quote the policy

No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Where possible, non-free content is transformed into free material instead of using a fair-use defense, or replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available; "acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose.

"replaced with a freer alternative" specifically means replacing copyright content with content that is not restricted, not replacing one copyright image with another. Hope this helps.Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It certainly does not help. You text states that "fair use" claims are not acceptable when a Free alternative exists. It does not state that they are acceptable when non-Free alternatives exist. Xeno claims that "fair use" claims are acceptable when non-Free alternatives exist, and I ask him to source that. Evidently you cannot. Rama (talk) 15:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It states fairly plainly at WP:NFCCc1 that "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available". Not when there is another non-free alternative available, otherwise all non-free alternatives would cancel eachother out! –xeno^talk 15:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

How badly can one fail at basic math? "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available" does not mean "Non-free content is used everywhere no free equivalent is available". Rama (talk) 15:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Huh? I'm going to take my leave of this page because I'm afraid if I linger, I will respond to your attacks in kind. –xeno^talk 15:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

And yes, all non-free alternatives do cancel each other out. That is what makes all the difference between the legitimate use of Fair Use on Raising the Flag of Iwo Jima (picking on precise, exact photograph that you need to critically discuss) and the illegitimate use on architecture works (picking some random image in a porte-folio that you fancy to make a webpage nicer). Rama (talk) 15:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I think your understanding has seriously let you down here. In the case of Iwo Jima, there exists only one image known as "Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima". There's only one painting of the Mona Lisa. This has nothing whatever to do with Wikipedia policy, which is entirely based on whether you can replace the non-free image with a free image that will work just as well, not on whether you can replace the non-free image with another non-free image. Perhaps it would be better if you accepted the view of native English speakers at professional level - I work in English local government administration, and deal with legal Engish quite a bit, and your interpretation both of s120 and the Wikipedia policy is novel, and not correct. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that understanding is begining to close in to you. It is only because there exists only one image known as Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima that it is "irreplaceable" in the sense that allows for a Fair Use claim ot be made. Exactly like a direct quotation. Other types of Fair Use claims have all the advantages of theft over honest toil. Rama (talk) 22:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Nope, you are still not quite there. Your understanding of the English text both of the fair use policy and of the explanatory text that goes with Raising the Flag (I've read it in English, I'm making the assumption that there isn't a French equivalent) is flawed. What both the policy and the Iwo Jima text say is that where the only image available is non-free, it may be possible to make a fair use rationale for it (I'm not disputing your view that a lot of fair use rationales are rubbish - they could well be. I don't know). You are reading that to mean "where there is only ONE image in existence, and that is not free", but that is not what the English text means. The meaning of the English text is "where ANY image of this subject will be non-free, and there is no possibility of getting any non-free images." If all of the available images of something are non-free, then you are permitted to use one of those images under a correct fair use rationale. Honestly it does. I have no interest in this image, but I am a native English speaker who daily uses professional and legal English in her employment. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Look at the standard text of the keep rationale on the deletion debate "The result was to Keep the file, as no adequate free-licensed file exists or can be created to fulfill the limited role performed by this file at the time deletion was considered." NO adequate free licenced file exists, means in English that there is not ANY adequate free image - that any image of this subject will be non-free. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

What you are trying to back by asserting a superior command of English is purely a personal opinion. And that opinion goes against the letter and spirit of the policies. The very examples that are given as unacceptable Fair Use claims include [5]

• "An image whose subject happens to be a war, to illustrate an article on the war"
• "A photo from a press agency (e.g. AP), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article."

Unless the very image itself is notable, a Fair Use claim is without merit. That some templates associated with the policy are ambiguous and, most of all, that many people purposedly refuse to understand what is actually written, is irrelevant. Rama (talk) 22:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Oh dear. Everything you say convinces me that you really cannot understand the nuances written texts at all. In those two examples, the issue is that there is a great deal of collateral which may not be used at random in an article to which it has no real relationship. This says nothing at all about a situation where a small number of images relating specifically to the topic exist.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but they are precisely about this. One of the features of the first counter-example is that any other image could have been chosen; in the second, it is very explicitely stated that "the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article" if it is to be a valid claim.

Patronising people on their language skills is one thing, but refusing to understand is another. Rama (talk) 08:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

(Sigh). None of this is remotely relevant to the question of whether or not one of a set of images of a specific subject created by one individual can be used under fair use in an article on that specific subject, where the image is the subject of sourced commentary in the article. I think I'm going to leave now and pursue this elsewhere. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

That is irrelevant. The problem is not "where the image is the subject of sourced commentary", but "where the image depicts the subject of sourced commentary". And in this last, case, which is the problem at hand, it cannot be used under fair use. This is in the policy, plain and simple. Rama (talk) 11:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Rama. Comments such as 'How badly can one fail at basic math?' are extremely combatitive and quite simply rude. Please try to assume good faith, and if you cannot at least try not to be so offensive. Thanks. Weakopedia (talk) 04:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Weakopedia, though I agree with you on principle, you appear oblivious to the much repeated failure of my interlocutor to understand the difference between "there exists" and "for all" -- a failure he repeats so often that it stretches the assumption of good faith into its last resorts, where it is then slaughtered by his explicit admission of acting by political purposes rather than by technical points.

Furthermore, leaving aside the questions of one-sidedness and context, I think that we do not share the same assessment as to the opportunity of admonishing people on their behaviour several days after the facts, when the dust has settled and things are back to normal. Rama (talk) 08:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia - your words don't vanish. They remain as a testament not only to your attitude, your record as a Wikipedian, but also as belonging to Wikipedia. No matter if you believe that the circumstances have been cleared up, the words remain. It would be wrong for you to conclude that simply because a few days have passed without admonishment that no admonishment exists. I am not oblivious to the ongoing discussion, having spent a good part of last night reading it all, and I find nothing that could possibly justify resorting to insult. In most situations you are required to assume good faith. However even when bad faith can be proven that does not alter how Wikipedia works. At no point do you have the right to insult other Wikipedians. It is entirely proper that this should be noted - as a sysop you should be fully aware how counterproductive such remarks can be and it would have been detrimental to Wikipedia to have the remarks remain unchallenged. Regards. Weakopedia (talk) 10:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Being a sysop grants neither a special social status, nor particular political abilities of sweet-tongness.

I insulted nobody, I remarked that my interlocutor was failing to demonstrate the very basic ability to distinguish between a necessary condition and a sufficient condition, something which is taught as early as age 6 in some educational systems. That he would have so little self respect as to make such statement in public and where, as you quite aptly say, "your words don't vanish", is not my fault. Rama (talk) 10:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

PS having spent several hours researching the matter I felt moved to comment - not on the matter itself, but on the means of communication that you as a sysop chose. I must note then that you comment to me that I 'appear oblivious' to any part of the discussion would constitute an assumption of bad faith. This is not the case. In fact, although I read the words of all parties I have no 'side' to take in the argument, it is a legal matter not to be decided on by the likes of me. However the subject of interWiki relations is valid for all Wikipedians. I do not believe that you intended to display bad faith with me just now, but it serves as an example of how unfortunate wording can exacerbate a situation. I would encourage you to consider this in future dealings. Good day. Weakopedia (talk) 10:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I certainly agree that being appointed as an admin is no guarantee that you fully understand the English language, as has been pointed out to you. I also agree that being an admin is not a barrier to you being personally offensive. Nevertheless I feel I must point out that your words are offensive, and your attitude consistently so. You obviously don't understand basic human interaction, that which humans develop before even the age of 6.

Do my words offend you? They are phrased in exactly the manner you choose to deal with people, so if they offend you then you must understand that your words are also offensive to others. Good day. Weakopedia (talk) 09:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not offended, but you are wrong. Complex human interaction develops much later than age 6. Nevertheless, you are correct in your assessment that I am not skilled at interacting with Human; this is the reason why I avoid politics or politically loaded positions, and focus on technical subjects.

My attitude certainly has its rough edges, but it is at least consistant; unlike that of people who venture into technical arguments in which they make gross logical mistakes, or that of the Tartuffes who attempt to put oil of the fire in the name of so-called "wikilove". Rama (talk) 09:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)