User talk:Rama/archive 4

Image:Estampe-p1000686.jpg

I reverted your post in the “Soga clan” article because Gorou Tokimune is not a member of Soga clan. I really like the picture you posted, but it was apparently in the wrong place. I would appreciate it if you could post it in a more relevant article – somewhere like Samurai, perhaps. Thanks for your understanding. Dwy

I did so because the explanation linked to the image mentionned the name "Soga"; obviously, this might have been something very different from this very Soga clan. Thank you for your vigilance. Rama 12:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You broke it!

Hi Rama. You appear to have b0rked Template:Blank. It is now showing a broken-character rectangle, at least in Internet Explorer under Windows XP. - Mark 08:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I pasted a code sent to me by User:Alphax; since I am not so involved in the technicalities of this template, I think that the wisest course f action would be for me to unprotect this template so that you can tweak it; you can easily request protection again if needed, either here or by any sysop.

Incidentally, the previous version was showing a rectangle with Konqueror, while this one turns out fine. Good luck ! Rama 08:09, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

French cities

Can you explain why you have deleted Template:Paris infobox and Template:Bordeaux infobox??? There was absolutely no debate on that, no note at the special page about deletions, and out of the blue you delete this!! I find your attitude really cavalier! These two deleted infoboxes have been replaced by a standard Template:FrenchCityBox created by User:Antoinou2958. If you had done a minimum of research, you would have noticed that there are subtle differences between each city... some cities need a "Subdivision" entry, some don't, some cities need an "Intercommunality" entry, some don't, some cities have different labels below their flags or coat of arms, so a standard infobox can't work. We have to have a specific infobox for each city. Why do you think I took the trouble to create separate infoboxes in the first place?! Now the new infoboxes in the Paris and Bordeaux article are quite screwed up, with some lines not aligned anymore, and some info missing altogether. Really I find your attitude particularly cavalier. The best you can do now to repair what you've done is to undelete these deleted infoboxes, and tell Antoinou2958 that although he probably meant well with his idea of a standard infobox for all French cities, the result is simply impractical. Hardouin 21:25, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done by user request. Complain to User:Antoinou2958. Rama 21:33, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I have restored Template:Paris infobox and Template:Bordeaux infobox in your latest revision. Rama 22:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I tough it would be good but I don't see where info are missing! For the Subdivision problem I've juste write none on the Bordeaux page and for the Intercommunality, the most cities need an intercommunality entry. I think it's better so. The attitude of Rama isn't cavalier, it's my fault antoinou2958 09:10, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mutual masturbation illustration

Hello, I recently added Image:C-et-S.jpg to Mutual masturbation as was wondering if you might be willing to do a drawing depicting the opposite form of mutual masturbation as well? It would add balance to that page just as having illustrations of both fellatio and cunnilingus on oral sex has. Anyway, no need to do so if you are not interested, but it was a thought. -SocratesJedi | Talk 06:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, excellent ! It did not occur to me that this illustration could be used for an article -- I made it for a particular purpose.

There are a number of illustrations which I plan to redo, since the present ones (pardon me) suck; I will add your idea to the batch then. Thank you and cheers ! Rama 08:26, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Army

is this the right place to reply?

I uploaded the two pictures in question and placed them under the CC-by-sa licence.

The picture you deleted from the page was there specifically to illustrate the "colourful street evangelism" which was referred to in the original body of the text -- see the multi-coloured Jesus Army jacket worn by the man on the right. Would it be better if that was directly mentioned in the caption?

I also notice you have changed "colourful evangelism" to "proselytism", which Wikipedia says has "almost exclusively negative" connotations. Does that fit with a neutral point of view?

John Campbell 17:08, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If that was a uniform, it certainly wasn't very notable. I mostly see people shaking hands and smiling, and an unrealistic depiction of the welcome that people get when they accost people in the street to talk about such personal matters as religion.

As for proselytism, it is a very technical term which describes these activities probably better than "colourful evangelism". Rama 23:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The multi-coloured camouflage jacket (right) is often worn as a Jesus Army "uniform" in evangelism

- The photograph is actually a genuine one, and not posed. It was taken at the end of a conversation on the streets. It was intended to be informative, not propaganda. In your view does an amended caption help (see right)?

- A "very technical term" in which discipline? Evangelism is certainly the technical one in the field of Christianity, and more neutral. I still think that the edit didn't reflect a NPOV.

John Campbell 09:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If this photograph features an actual uniform, I understand why one would like to put it in; otherwise, there is no information in it, and it just gives a smiling-happy-merry look to the page which might have its neutrality questioned.

As for proselytism, I have to redirect you to the relevant article, proselytism. Rama 09:24, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support

Hey there! Thanks a lot for your support on my RfA. See you later on IRC! Sam Hocevar 17:41, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Chinese sentiment

For some reason TJive and his friend TDC keeps redirecting the article Anti-Chinese sentiment to Racism, which it have nothing to do with. It's also a lazy redirect, as nothing on the page Racism have anything related to Anti-Chinese sentiment, which is more of a political than racial issue. I suspect that they have a feud against me and tries to hunt down and revert everything I write.

Thanks for your welcome note, Rama!

Hi Rama, I just saw your welcome note. Thanks a lot! I hope we can really collaborate to make the Opus Dei article NPOV. I think it is a matter of people listening to each other. Best wishes! Thomas S. Major 10:47, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Onion nagasaki.jpg has been listed for deletion

An image or media file you uploaded, Image:Onion nagasaki.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Sorry...

User talk : 83.198.201.104 - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Please stop. If you continue to vandalise pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- -- Rama 19:26, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok ok no problem, sorry for that but I'm french i like my country and i like Jean-Marie Le Pen, it's not a crime... In a friendly way (sorry for my english but in France we are very bad in foreign language). Vive la France et l'Angleterre !

Ceci n'est en aucune manière une raison pour introduire des déclarations ridiculement tendencieuses dans l'article. Veuillez vous référer aux principes fondamentaux de Wikipedia -- cette encyclopédie est supposée être impartiale. Vous êtes le bienvenu si votre affection pour Le Pen peut vous permettre d'ajouter de nouvelles informations exactes sans prendre parti, mais les slogans seront moins bien reçus. Merci. Rama 06:51, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Lord Nelson Picture

Hi Rama. Did you supply the picture for the article on Lord Nelson? Did you notice that the picture is backwards? The picture shows Nelson with a missing left arm, when he was missing his right arm! I have no idea how to go about changing the picture, or I would fix it if I could. Also, the picture is not really the death of Nelson. It is only his wounding. He died some 3 or so hours later on the orlop deck (or cockpit) of the HMS Victory not on the quarter deck as shown. --Ckaiserca 22:07, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have flipped and replaced the original image. Dabbler 10:50, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ! Thank you to everybody for your vigilance and nice work ! No, I had not spotted the flipping, it is quite funny indeed :) Cheers ! Rama 14:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User block

You have blocked my account on the grounds my username violated policy. After reviewing the policy, I have determined that my username does not if fact violate that policy. I feel that your actions as an administrator were driven by your POV considerations regarding Jean-Marie Le Pen and not impartial guidance. Considering you merely used a template as an explanation and have provided no additional rational for you block, I kindly request that you remove it immediately.

Very best regards,
Großhauptsturmführer

Your username is offensive because it refers to the SS. As you can see in th policy, "Wikipedia does not allow inflammatory or offensive user names. (...) Names which refer to symbols of racial/ethnic/national/religious hatred, including historical figures who are widely associated with such". The SS, a Nazi and criminal organisation, certainly qualifies as a historical figure associated with "racial/ethnic/national/religious hatred". The matter has been discussed with other sysops. You are of course free to contribute with another username. Rama 20:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sketches

Rama, you call them "ugly", but some of them are brilliant! My favourite sketch of yours is Image:Autocunnilingus.jpg. Once I've noticed the Klein bottle on the bookshelf, I couldn't stop laughing! I certainly hope the article survives the AfD... Owen× ☎ 02:16, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected sockpuppets of Bogdanov

There is three names left on Suspected sockpuppets of Bogdanov, all being blocked :

User:A.de Parme, User:Igor Bogdanoff, User:Max.Epiphysique

The first one is a "meat" sock puppet (a close relative to the Bogdanov, member of the french jet-set, trying to ridiculously use authority arguments on the issue, then vandalizing the page), the second one is an obvious sock puppet (he is now editing under a very dynamic IP), the third one, though, could not be suspected to be a Bogdanov puppet : he've never vandalized the page, only posted on the talk page comments against Igor's usual lies. Moreover I'm in contact with this user by e-mail and can assure you he is by no way a clone of Igor/Grichka Bogdanov.

Could you, please, have a look at his blocking state, at least to know when he will be allowed to edit Talk Pages ?

Thanks, --YBM 18:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit that accusations of sockpuppeting are casted in what one might call a very liberal fashion.

Max.Epiphysique was blocked indefinitely, and I have taken the liberty of unblocking him. I hope that he will now be able to contribute constructively and in a friendly way to the discussion. Rama 19:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks !

About sockpuppets : there are not so big a problem, after some of them to be blocked, Igor stopped using this trick. What is working anyway is changing IP ten times an hour and vandalizing the article. It could be time to consider blocking of editing on Bogdanov Affair the whole 82.123/16 and 82.124/16 IP ranges, don't you think ? --YBM 22:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hum, I was talking too fast, here is a new one : User:Nyoder.--YBM 23:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jules Verne text deletion

I was disappointed by your contribution to the discussion. You, as a fan (an obvious fan) of Jules Verne think that the material is not notable. I, as another fan of Jules Verne, having read much of his opus before the age of 11, some of it in the original French, much of it many times over, think they are very notable and resonate strongly with emotions that his works awoke in me as I read his books. But I am not inserting my opinion into the article, only reporting on critical studies published by the mainstream French press in recent years. You, on the other hand, by deleting the material out of hand, seem to be interposing yours. Is that not so? Haiduc 01:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I had never heard of this study; this is by no means a criteria for dismissing that the ide is valid or even notable, but I think that it certainly temperates the "mainstream French press".

Also, implying from

Verne, as late as 1878 at the age of fifty, surrounded himself with very young friends, such as the sixteen year old Aristide Briand, whom he frequently picked up from school and brought to his home.

that this is a sign a homosexual behaviour is completely anachronic, failing to take into account the sexual etiquette of the 19th century. Rama 01:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rama, I'd like to think that some day eminent French intellectuals will commend your ideas, and the great French publishing houses will compete to publish your works. However, until that moment comes, I am afraid that the opinions and conclusions of men like Moré and Paulhan will have to take precedence over yours, all the more so in the compilation of an encyclopedia.

I have no idea what it is you are trying to say by using the word "anachronic" re the Briand thing, but if anything, I would think that Moré, who was a contemporary of Jules Verne, at least in his teens, may have a far better understanding than you on the subtexts of late nineteenth century French society and literature.

As for your "not hearing" about this work "temperating" [what is this, a Bushism?] the claim to the material being mainstream, here is a link to the Gallimard publishing house, if you have not heard of them.

How is it possible that a person with as much Wikipedia experience as you have, can so blatantly interpose their personal opinions to counter those of eminent authorities in the field, and be so cavalier as to delete other's work without the most elementary cross-checking?! Here is another link, since you do not care to do your own research: on Marcel Moré, who was a much-published and respected Verne historian for three quarters of the twentieth century Haiduc 11:15, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have particular opinions about Verne's sexual life (frankly, I doesn't even fascinate me that much), but I do contest that Verne is proeminently know for homosexual behaviour.

The books you are referring to are certainly very interesting, but they do not contitute a trend in themselves; Gallimard is an important editor which publishes lots of stuff -- including cranks -- because books just sell.

So I am still left with the impression that a minority of militant homosexual writers interpret a behaviour which could or could not have been motivated by homosexual impulsions, and that the idea is not widely shared (by opposite to, say, tendencies to pedophily by Lewis Caroll).

Should I run into, for instance, literature courses which discuss Verne's homosexuality in a regular university cursus, I would change my mind; but such statements by militant and mostly unknown parties do not strike me as particularly convincing. Rama 11:51, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock of Großhauptsturmführer

Greetings, user:Großhauptsturmführer contacted me on IRC concerning his block which he felt unjustified. He has since left a message on my talk page. I do not see how his user name is inappropriate and am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. I did not see any racist or Nazi sympathetic edits that would lead me to believe that was his angle on wikipedia.

That being said, I think he deserves a chance to prove himself. But if you feel it necessary to reblock under the blocking policy I will not unblock. Thanks again and happy editing. Arm 19:53, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've reblocked. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit that Arm's move sort of surprised me. I am copying details about the reason on user:Großhauptsturmführer's page, it might be that user's who do not speak German might not find it obvious, after all.

Thank you to both of you for this display of a sound process regarding adminship.

I also stress that, as Arm said, this person is of course welcome to contribute under another username. Rama 07:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have read your comments and support your decision. The user contacted me and plead his case that a block had been done based on his edits rather than username. As an administrator I generally look at edits and have rarely if ever conducted administrative action based on the appropriateness of a user name. His edits did not seem to be out of bounds and I decided to give him the benefit of the doubt and thought that if he conducted himself in the appropriate manor that would resolve the issue. Sometimes very active administrators error on the side of caution and make blocks because they are so busy with administrating wikipedia that they do not have time to go case by case. This was not the situation in this instance and I apologize for thinking it was so, sometimes I error on the side that people should generally not be blocked.

Having reviewed the policy, and done a translation of the user name more thoroughly (I do not speak nor am I literate in German), I was completely in the wrong. As of late I have not been as active on wikipedia as much as I would like, and perhaps forgot that some users believe it better to manipulate administrators to get what they want than comply with policy (changing a user name). I hope I did not inconvenience you in any way or obstruct your efforts in policing wikipedia. Thanks and happy editing. Arm 21:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is really quite all right, I do prefer doubt to benefit to the defender.

As a user, user:Großhauptsturmführer is perhaps so prone to defend far-right extremists that he overlooks leaving articles in a sensible state -- for instance, in this edit, user:Großhauptsturmführer had removed the "extreme" in "extreme right" to qualify Le Pen, leaving the article in the non-sensical state where it said that France had not before had right-wing politicians arriving at the second tour of the elections, which is of course completely wrong (they actually tend to win the election).

So if I had to comment on user:Großhauptsturmführer's edits, I would suggest that he might need more encouragements to double-check what he is doing than to be bold. But apart from this minor detail, he is very welcome to contribute when he had choosen a proper username.

Arm, my above "display of a sound process regarding adminship" does include your action: I rejoice that users have appeal options. Cheers ! Rama 01:38, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Multi-licensing of images

G'day Rama

Thanks for your comment on multi-licensing.

I find the whole thing confusing, and it's what is currently preventing me from using Wikimedia Commons, so it's something I'd like to resolve. When I tried to upload an image to commons, it seemed the GFDL wasn't enough. There seemed no attempt to explain the options that were given or to justify the lack of a plain GFDL-by-creator option, and I just gave up. My primary output is articles in English Wikipedia, and while I'd like to support the wider projects, if using commons is going to needlessly take away time that I could otherwise be using to write articles, it's not going to be a priority.

I have found the many discussions on replacing the GFDL for text completely unhelpful over the years, so I'd take some convincing that it's necessary to multi-license. I'm open to it. Meantime, is there any way I can use commons and just license under the GFDL? Or have the politicians among us decided that they can force me to multi-license whether I want to or not? They may be wrong...

Or, is there at least some non-legalese explanation and justification of some licensing scheme that I can use on commons? No promises other than I'll look at it, but I will do that. I've put a notice on my user page that authorises Wikimedia foundation to do what they like in the future. I can see the need for that, should have done it long ago.

Sorry if that's a bit confrontational, but frankly I found the commons user interface downright rude, which was very disappointing. I'd really like your help on this, and I suspect there may be others who find the commons upload interface equally appalling, but don't take the trouble to tell anyone. Andrewa 11:07, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi !

Yes, Commons can be a bit strange at first, because of the strictness of its policy, but it isn't quite as bad as it may seem.

First, you can upload things on Commons under the GFDL only, absolutely. No problem with this. It is just important that you specify that you have made the photograph yourself, obvioulsy. A simple way to do so is to use the {{GFDL}} or {{GFDL-self}} tags

Now, my question about double-licencing was about a small detail in the GFDL which makes it a bit of a burden to use in practice: the GFDL demands that the user gives a copy of the GFDL itself with the works. On the Internet, it isn't much of a problem, a link will do. But imagine wanting to print a GFDL-ed photograph to illustrate a one-page article in a newspaper: you will have about three pages of licence attached to the image ! :p his has been an actual problem in the past, with good-faith people wanting to use one of our images but having no way to satisfy this condition.

This is where the CC-by-sa licence comes in: it is virtually identical to the GFDL, but has a slightly less demanding condition, in that is only requires the users to mention that the image is Free and where the licence can be found. (the CC-by-sa can be used with {{CC-by-sa-2.5}}).

Double-licencing is done just by having both tags on the same image; noone will force you to do so, and you are perfectly welcome to upload GFDL-ed only images on Commons.

I take good note of you remark regarding the rudeness of the interface, and, being a Commons admin as well, I will try to take steps to improve the situation on this respect. Commons makes a point of not wanting unfree images, but that doesn't mean that we are willing to turn down good-spirited users.

Thank you for your time, and don't hesitate to ask me further if you have more questions. Cheers ! Rama 11:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Sorry if the reply was blunt. I'll have another go at commons when next I have photos to contribute to Wikipedia. It's a great project, one that I wish I had more time for. Andrewa 19:14, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Username Großhauptsturmführer

You have banned my previous username, Großhauptsturmführer. Though I feel your ban may have been POV motivated, I am going to assume good faith and give you an oppurtunity to apply your rules equally. I find User:V. Molotov's username to be offensive because it obviously refers to genocide accessory Vyacheslav Molotov. Banneduser96 18:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but I have nothing to prove to you. Good day. Rama 07:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Does an administrator have the ability to see the IP adress of a given registered user? In the case for example that a certain user is using two different usernames in order to edit (or vandalise) articles, can he be somehow detected? Miskin 08:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Typically no, this is an ability reserved to developers, I am afraid; however, I have heard that User:David Gerard is an exception to this rule, and has the ability. You might want to ask him, or try out asking on the IRC (freenode), at #wikipedia or #wikimedia. Good luck ! Rama 08:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Are you working at lip6? Miskin 15:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome.

I don't think so, what is lip6 ? :p Rama 15:08, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the Laboratoire d'Informatique de Paris 6 ! No, I work at the EPFL. Rama 19:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, just checking. Miskin 12:48, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Images of Romeo and Juliet in Sarajevo

Hi,

I was searching low and high for photos, and have found them in various magazines in libraries, but I couldn't use them since they were all copyrighted. The ones that I used were on numerous websites, most often than not, on websites without any contact information, and therefore I gathered that they have been released in public domain. Both photos obtained were not used from any of the news agencies. Since they are not from any news agencies (at least not indicated so on the website http://ethnikoi.org/AdmiraBosko.html) it does not say on them 'property of' or 'copyrighted material', and photos themselves had no labeles of news agencies that you can ordinarily see (such as AP, AFP, REUTERS, etc).

Lana

Svetlana Miljkovic 07:10, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright issues

hi,

i just read your email, which I was afraid was going to sound like the way it did. So, since I think this article is important (especially since my people tend to deny majority of things done in this war) and I definitively don't want to see it deleted yet again, I am gonna work on finding, or trying to locate either Ismic family or producer Zaritsky some way or the other.

Thank you though for getting my attention about stuff like this, cuz it could lead to deletion of my future articles! I guess there is still tons of stuff to learn, and writing was the easiest!

Lana

Svetlana Miljkovic 17:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reformatting Workshop

Hi Rama. I have a question. The Workshop page about the Affair is starting to become ugly. I'd reformat it (moving comments by parties to the parties paragraph, setting numbered bullet points), but I'm concerned about it being considered badly, because of the high sensitivity of the subject. What do you think about it ? Ze miguel 09:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, tricky question. Arbitration pages are quite "serious", so writing on them is a dreaded activity.

That said, I was quite inclined to to this myself, and it is obvious that you did this is good faith. Furthermore, some people tend to put their comment anywhere, so I expect that you won't be the worst thing that will have happened to the page anyway. Rama 10:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been immediately banned, so I guess it was OK :) Thanks. Ze miguel 13:12, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment at Texas Ranger Division's FAC

Dear Rama, first of all, I wish to apollogize for the hasty words of reply to your comment on the Texas Ranger Division FAC nomination. I was a bit suprised by some parts of your criticism, but I then realized the sense intended by you at your observations. Especially, and correct me if I'm wrong, regarding what you believed a "bizarre" use of certain words, and it is my humble opinion that perhaps it was closer to the French sense, rather than the English one. In any case, I offer you my sincere apollogies for my very unappropriate response, and I prefer to work with you to address your considerations properly, in a similar way of what I'm doing with your fellow countryman, David.Monniaux. In fact, some of the points over which you've expressed concern have already been solved, like the use of the term "civilized", which you felt it was obscure. Some others, I've explained to David already, and I'd be very happy if I could discuss with you other aspects that you feel must be improved. As you may imagine, I've put a lot of work and sacrifice into this article, and I really intend to do my best to solve all concerns that could arise.

I sincerely thank you for bringing your valuable concerns to my attention. I'll be glad to listen to your suggestions and work with them until you consider my contribution is worthy of passing this hard test. My best wishes, Shauri smile! 00:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ! Sorry, for this thing around "bizarre"; I intended to mean the English meaning, but apparently the word can have different nuances (though I was once told by a Texan to "go fuck myself" in what turned out to be a casually friendly way, so I have to assume that nuances are not always understood the same way from Cambridge to Texas).

Actually, I have a general problem with Texas Ranger Division; it is overall a good article and an interesting one, but I would not nominate it for Featured article in its present state; my main point of criticism is that it tends to be an accumulation of very detailed and picturesque anecdotes, lacking what I would expect of an encyclopedic distance. For instance, Texas_Ranger_Division#John_Wesley_Hardin is so detailed that in my opinion, it stops being informative (on the general subject of the Texas Rangers) and starts stuffing the reader with clichés.

Also, as I mentionned earlier, there are several instances of implied features: for instance, what does "The agency is also fully integrated with modern Texan ethnic groups, counting numerous officers of Hispanic and African American origin" suggest ? That the only mention of a racial discrimination is the a contrario allusion to the fact that it is now ended is disturbing to me.

The article is mined with similar details which sacrify historic distance and critic understanding to folkloric details and praises. These are certainly unconscious, and I do not doubt your good faith, but I think that there is a very regional POV (Texan subject discribed by Texans forthe entertainment for other Texans) which makes this article look much more like a fan site than a critical, encyclopedic article.

Lots of details can't save a lack of general vision. I know that it is often what happens at first; I did the same for UNPROFOR. But I know that UNPROFOR needs lots of work, and I'd never suggest it as a featured article in its present state. Rama 22:29, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Marre

C'est de mieux en mieux. Je quitte l'histoire des Bogdanov pour éditer ceci, et dans la minute j'ai un gros militant anti-castriste qui commence à saccager la page avec des conneries sans nom, à partir d'une adresse IP. Je fais quoi là ? J'essaie d'être gentil avec le monsieur et de comprendre que Castro a peut-être fait abbatre un DC8 avec 73 personnes à bord juste pour pouvoir accuser les américain, je vais tout de suite voir le comité d'arbitrage pour me faire bannir, ou je me tire et je vais écrire un peu de code au lieu de me faire chier ici ? Ze miguel 16:04, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Une chose à garder à l'esprit est que les articles ne doivent pas être prêt pour une date donnée; si un article doit mettre des mois à se stabiliser, soit.

Par ailleurs, les changements inacceptables sont généralement changés par d'autr utilisateurs (par exemple, une IP isolée ne "gagne" pas un "guerre de revert"). Dans un cas comen celui-ci, le mieux est probablement de demander à l'IP en question de documenter ses dires; notamment, faire remplacer le "On dit bla bla bla" par qui exactement le dit (généralement, les choses deviennent plus claires quand on "on dit que..." se remplace par "une minorité d'extrème-droite connue pour raconter des salades prétend sans avancer de preuve que...").

De façon général, mets assez de distance intellectuelle entre l'article et toi, sinon tu vas souffrir ! Bonne chance ! Rama 22:43, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bon, j'ai relu mon texte et je te prie de m'excuser pour mon ton acerbe. C'est ma faute si je ne choisis que des sujets polémiques. Allez, je vais voir s'ils ont besoin d'aide pour détailler l'élevage des cochons nains en Mongolie Orientale :) A+ Ze miguel 23:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Voilà, j'ai créé mon premier article: Manfred Gnadinger. J'aimerais beaucoup ton avis dessus - tu peux y aller, je suis blindé maintenant :). Ze miguel 15:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bah, si tu dois te défouler quelque part, ma page de discussion n'est pas un mauvais endroit. Tu ne foutras pas le boxon, et tu n'auras pas l'air d'un charlot.

Ton article est très bien, surtout pour un début. Il y a des références et tout... Maintenant, la classe, c'est si tu arrive à pêcher des photos. En tout cas, ton article m'a donné envie d'en voir, c'est bon signe ! Continue comme ça ! Rama 15:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Texas Ranger Division

Hi Rama, since you don't comment on the Texas Rangers, it is obvious that you are no longer taking part in the discussion. I will consequently strike your comment from it.--Wiglaf 22:10, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to ask me whether my objections still stand, but not to touch my comments without my consent. Incidentally, it so turns out that I do maintain my objections. Rama 22:32, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I politely suggest that you try to be more responsive in the future. It does help getting along with people.--Wiglaf 23:43, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Francophonie on Wikipedia, et "Bogdanov affair"...

Je vois que tu es francophone, ce qui n'est pas vraiment stupéfiant si tu travailles à Lausanne (moi j'habite à Genève, c'est mignon, non ? Il faudra qu'on se fasse une bouffe !).

Bon, sérieusement : si, comme les trois quarts des intervenants de ce forum, tu lis parfaitement le français, ça n'arrange pas ce que je pense de toi : tu es donc parfaitement capable de lire les fils de discussion qu'il y a eu sur les Bogdanovs, tu les as certainement lus au moins en partie (tu peux même y avoir participé, d'ailleurs), tu connais donc la prose d'YBM, Romnulphe, GrosSabots, etc. aussi bien que moi ! Et ça ne te gêne pas que l'article raconte que les Bogdanovs ont été insultants avec les internautes, et que du coup "A few participants in these discussions responded in a similar manner", les pauvres chéris ? Alors qu'Igor, lui, n'a jamais insulté personne ? Et tu trouves normal que l'article mentionne le fait qu'Igor se soit énervé au sujet de Charpak (sans l'insulter, d'ailleurs, contrairement à ce que prétend l'article), et censure toute allusion aux insultes qu'ils subissent depuis deux ans au moins ? Alors qu'ils se sont fait traiter des dizaines de fois de salauds, charlatans, escrocs, cons, abrutis, etc. ? Et tout ça est écrit, mon vieux, que tu le veuilles ou non ! Vous vous gargarisez du mot "fact", mais quand on vous met sous les yeux un de ces "faits" vous l'ignorez parce qu'il ne sert pas l'idée que vous voulez faire passer : une image totalement négative des Bogdanov, à tous les niveaux.

En fait tu es comme n'importe quel autre contributeur francophone : tu les connais depuis 20 ans au moins, tu as donc depuis longtemps ton opinion sur eux (négative, apparemment), et tu as choisi un camp en fonction de ce préjugé. Et peut-être aussi, au fond de toi, tu te régales d'avoir un pouvoir sur un type que tu as vu 36 fois à la télé (mais si, mais si !), et ça explique le ton sur lequel tu lui "parles" : comme un instituteur de la vieille école qui sermonne un de ses élèves. Alors, quel effet ça fait ? Moi je ne peux pas saquer ***** ***** (célèbre animateur TV), je peux créer un article sur lui ? Comme ça je pourrai le descendre dans l'article, et l'envoyer promener quand il viendra se défendre !

Bon, je plaisante, et même si le cas se présentait je n'en ferais rien ... Juste pour dire que je n'accepte pas que les frères Bogdanov aient un article aussi tendancieux, simplement parce qu'une poignée de Français n'a pas aimé Temps X, ou n'aime pas leur tronche, ou a envie d'embêter des "people" devant un public étendu parce qu'ils n'auront pas deux fois une chance pareille, et parce que les Français qui les défendent sont moins nombreux. Donc, vous pourrez nous bloquer et nous bannir tant que vous voudrez, si il le faut je rameuterai tout ce que je trouverai comme internautes francophones (par exemple par l'intermédiaire de mon site) jusqu'à ce que cet article soit au moins un minimum objectif, et que vous soyez obligés de prendre en compte aussi les faits objectifs qui sont en leur faveur !

Ah, ça va mieux en le disant... en français !

Tout de bon ! ;-)

Laurence

Pour info:

Non je n'ai pas lu les forums; le peu que j'ai pu en voir m'ennuye à mourir et me déprime.
Je ne regarde pas la télévision non plus, et les présentateurs de télévision sont une espèce qui m'indiffère tout particulièrement.
Mon rôle sur l'article n'est pas, et n'a jamais été, d'en donner le ton. J'ai essayé d'encourager les gens à être civils, à avoir une méthodologie saine et à trouver des compromis (avec le succès que l'on sait).
Pour un point comme Charpak, il me parait évident que des gens qui prétendent révolutioner la physique moderne devraient être au dessus des insultes de gens comme "Romnulphe", "GrosSabots" ou je ne sais quoi. En revanche, les échanges avec des physiciens éminents (je pense que le Prix Nobel est un critère suffisent pour parler de "physicien éminent") sont d'un tout autre intérêt. Par ailleurs, j'ai plusieurs fois insisté pour qu'il soit fait mention et du ton désagréable des forums, et des insultes lancées à Charpak.
Non je ne connaissais pas les Bogdanov depuis 20 ans. Je pense que j'ai vaguement du entendre parler de leur bouquin de vulgarisation à un moment ou à un autre (sans y rattacher de tête), et je n'ai commencé à les connaître qu'en essayant de faire la circulation sur l'article de Wikipedia.

Pour le reste, le comportement des Bagdanov devant les spécialistes du domaine, puis devant la communauté scientifique en général, puis devant les journalistes scientifiques, puis devant les journalistes en général, puis devant les éditeurs, puis dans les forum internet, puis sur Wikipedia, doit à mon sens suffir à ce que les gens se fassent une idée du genre de personnages auxquels ils ont affaire. Nul besoin de sucrer l'article dans un sens ou dans un autre.

En ce qui concerne ta dernière remarque ("je rameuterai tout ce que je trouverai comme internautes francophones"), je te conseillerais vivement de n'en rien faire: l'impact sur Wikipedia sera à peu près nul, mais je crains que l'effet sur la cause que tu défends ne le soit pas; au delà de l'agacement passager des utilisateurs qui rétabliront les versions précédentes de l'article, les Bogdanov seront associés dans la perception collective à un type d'agissement que peu trouveront glorieux (ni intelligent, du reste).

Bonne chance pour la suite ! Rama 07:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FYAD loves you

Congratulations on your FYAD flag! Twinxor t 06:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ah, very funny indeed ! I am not very proud of this one drawing, but it is always amusing to see one's work used in unpredictable places. Thanks and cheers ! Rama 07:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:New Rock boots

Hi there. Re: your query about the New Rock boots image: yes, I am the author, took a photo of the boots with a digital camera on top of a fridge (hence the white background) and used Photoshop to clean up the image a bit. If you think it looks like an official catalogue photo, I guess that's a compliment! I'm happy to licence the image under CC-by-SA, I presume I can just copy the licence template from the cartoon. -- Canley 13:46, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you very much ! And yes, congratulations for the image ! Rama 14:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for protecting Bogdanov Affair.

i dunno how long it will be protected (i know someone told me a week is the maximum). but however long it is to be protected, i would recommend only leaving it unprotected a short time (hours), letting "adjustments" get made to the article, review these adjustments for POV, remove the blatant POV, and then re-protect the article. it's just a suggestion, but something needs to be tried so that so many person-hours are not wasted only keeping a vigil on this article against vandals. speaking of vandals, i think that:

{ {vprotected} }

might be a more accurate template to use than

{ {protected} }

Nicholas actually used if the last the page was protected.

Thank you for protecting this from the self-serving vandal. r b-j 17:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom workshop

Rama, le comité vient de rajoutter un paragraphe dans la page Workshop sur le fait que des éditeurs bannis continuent à éditer la page. Je trouve cela dommage qu'ils aient mis tout le monde dans le même sac, parce que les anti-B n'ont pas essayé d'ajouter une seule ligne de contenu depuis le ban (sauf RhiannonH) alors que les pro-B ne se sont pas gênés. Peut-être que ce fait peut représenter une circonstance atténuante ? Qu'en penses-tu ? Personnellement, je n'ai fait aucun edit, car les admins veillent sur la page, donc ça ne sert à rien, sinon à affaiblir la position des critiques.

PS: C'est dommage que cette histoire ait affecté Nicholas Turnbull.

Ze miguel 15:12, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Le comité d'arbitrage vient de lever le blocage de la page, au but avoué de l'utiliser comme un "pot de miel" et voir ce qui y vient (je ne trahis pas de secret en le disant, c'est écrit sur la page de Fred Bauder). Dans ce contexte, je pense qu'il est raisonable de supposer que les considérations sur qui a édité quoi, et dans quel sens, vont être prises en compte. Rama 00:27, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Castel j, Castel j., Castel j.., Castel j... Definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results :) Ze miguel 13:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hop: B Tracker. Ze miguel 15:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection of Bogdanov Affair

Hi,

I noticed that Fred Bauder of the Arbitration Committee requested on WP:RFPP that the article Bogdanov Affair should be left unprotected so that the Committee can watch who respects the injunctions. I checked today with Fred and he still would like that information, so I took the liberty of unprotecting the article. If for operational reasons you think the article should be kept protected, that's a different matter, but I'd like to give the Committee whatever cooperation we can so that they can have the information they need. See this dialog on Fred's talk page.

I'm kinda vaguely aware of the concerns expressed by Ze miguel, and if I have time I may try to get into this case and see what's happening. Rhiannonh's addition didn't seem such a big deal. Why is arbcom swarming all over this? Are the editors holding hostages or something? :) --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 22:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies; I had protected the article because the vast majority of recent edits was either deliberately tendentious edits by brand new users (so not allowed anyway), or reverts of these. I though of the protection as a mean to save everybody's time, but I was unaware of the latest developments of the arbcom. It goes without saying that I do not mean to hinder the work of the arbcom in any way, and that I cannot but apology when someone corrects a mistake of mine. Rama 00:04, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Amazon-variant-sex-position.jpg

I've got to ask: why the laptop? And that's not some variant KDE logo on the screen, is it? --Andy M. 09:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes yes, it is. See, the point of these drawings is to convoy impressions of realism and accuracy. It is well-known that people sometimes engage in sexual activities while doing other things, or in the immediate proximity of every-day items. It is also well-known that KDE users are particularly desirable and sexy people (hint hint !), hence the drawing. :) Rama 09:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

French ship Soleil-Royal (1670)

Hi, bon je suis pas trés doué en anglais, alors je te donne les infos en français pour compléter l'article. Construit à Brest de 1669 à 1671 par Laurent Hubac. vaisseau amiral de l'escadre du Ponant. Pemière campagne en 1690. le plus célèbre et le plus beaux des vaisseaux français de la flotte de LXIV. Aprés sa destruction en 1692, Construction d'un nouveau Soleil-Royal à Brest par Blaise Pangalo qui devient 1693 le foudroyant. Sabordé à Toulon en 1707 mais relevé et vendu en 1693. best regards. Petrusbarbygere 16:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merci ! J'ai juste un petit problème avec les dernières dates que tu donnes... "Sabordé à Toulon en 1707 mais relevé et vendu en 1693" ? A une prochaine ! Rama 08:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Il fallait lire 1793, pardon. Ah ces révolutionnaires sans le sous... Merci. Petrusbarbygere 01:08, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

image:male_masturbation.jpeg

I am user spaceturner and have made an modified version of the File:Male masturbation.jpeg with gimp, and it are some green color style with some glare who shows the shaking in the body. The modified version is distrubed as male_masturbation_orgasm.jpeg

Thanks for your kind welcome note! Cshapiro 07:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

TJive has done it again

It seems like he never learn. Despite being warned several months ago, TJive and his friend CJK still continues to repeatedly deleting off sections of articles they don't agree with without consensus. [1][2][3]. Please do something about their continuing vandalism.

Ships

Hi, I wasn't aware of the ship naming conventions, the names seemed odd when I first saw them. I have moved the individual ship article back to French... Redoutable, where possible describing the type of ship (French battleship...) in place of just French ship. Does the convention also apply to the list of ships called Redoutable? I tend to think this list would be better left at Redoutable since the most likely search would be for the name rather that the string French ship Redoutable, I'll leave the decision up to you.--nixie 23:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I am not sure of anything about this subject; questions might probably be asked on the page of the naming conventions project. It is just that I feel a bit wierd when I see these articles moved to a gazillon namings ("Redoutable", "FS Redoutable", "French ship Redoutable", "French submarine Redoutable", ...), especially since it tends to create ugly-looking double redirects.

Personally, I would suggest keeping "French ship Redoutable", or "Redoutable", as an index of all these ships (one of these will be a redirect to the other anyway).

For the type of ship, it is a somwaht tricky question: for instance, ships which are internationally categorised as "destroyers" (like the F70 frigates) have been known in the French navy first as "corvettes", and later as "frigates". Another example is that someone once naively moved the article about the SNLE Redoutable to "French submarine Redoutable", which of course does not make sense since at least two French submarines have born the name (and I suspect that you could find at least one additional if you were to search hard... :p ).

My conclusion would be that typically, it does not make a big difference if you write "French ship Redoutable" or "French battleship Redoutable" (except for ambiguious cases like the destroyer/corvette/frigate above) as long as one takes care to keep the date of launching in the text. And of course to keep these redirects in order. And perhaps a specific convention on the Naming Conventions project would be nice too ! :)

Cheers ! Rama 09:05, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Emeute de Clichy

merci pour tes interventions ; je trouvais (et trouve) que cet évenement est trop écrit par et pour les anglophones. Les français pourront toujours peaufiner ceci quand celà sera sorti de l'actu. Yug (talk)

On fait ce qu'on peut, hein... (vive la "loi sur le voile"!) :) Rama 07:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me Rama?

Hi Rama I remembered having a fun dialog with you when I upgraded the Breitling page with all that stuff about EMP resistance and RAF guys getting rescued etc.) so I though you might be able to render a little tech help to me in trying to untangle some Wiki Spam. I was looking for the Wiki Waste Disposal page and found that for some reason it had the content for Waste_Management on it. Strange. So I looked at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_Management and found that the whole page has been taken over by a spammer. It is done with redirects so its beyond my technical skill to sort out but I thought that one of the Wiki good and wise might be able to put it to rights again. --Daedelus 12:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, Waste Management Incorporated is a notable company in Indiana (I had never heard of them before, I must say), so the existence of Waste Management Incorporated is legitimate, apparently.

Now, about the redirect, someone pointed me to the fact that there are two distinct articles: Waste management and Waste Management (mind the capital (no, I had not seen that at first either ;) )).

Knowing that, my impression is that most of this problem could be solved with disclaimers like "This article is about the Indiana company; for the management of waste, see Waste management" and "This article is about management of waste; for the Indiana company, see Waste Management".

Of course, if you think that this matter should be further considered, feel free to drop me a line. Cheers ! Rama 13:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did spot the two distinct articles: Waste management and Waste Management but that did not clear up the conundrum I'm afraid. Even if they are a notable company they are certainly not synonymous worldwide with Waste management. So I think Waste Management should redirect to Waste management rather than to Waste Management Incorporated. What do you think?

Hmmm, I see... well, I frankly do not know: I think that this is a matter for someone who is sensibilised to the issue of Waste management... You might request comments from people who have edited these articles. If you have technical requests to help a move, I'll be happy to help, but at this stage, I do not feel competant to answer, sorry. Rama 16:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2005 Paris suburb riots

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. -- 24.43.240.72 14:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Block of User:81.173.238.243

When you blocked this user you made the comment in the block log of "You are a vulgar and unfunny cretin". Might I suggest (as one admin to another) that this is not an appropriate comment to leave in an edit summary, particularly in the block log for an IP? We don't know how many users have access to that IP, nor what impression the next user to access Wikipedia via that IP is going to have of our project when they read the reason why they've been blocked. I think I can understand that as a French person you are going to feel very strongly about the particular page they vandalised, and don't dispute an immediate block for such a high-visibility page, however I feel the situation could have done with a bit more diplomacy than you showed. -- Francs 2000 17:27, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite right. Obviously this sort of comment is only tolerable in very extreme situations (if ever), but if one should happen to fly out, it is particularly regrettable that is should do so on an IP. I can't really say that I apologise -- since in all cold blood, my esteem such edits is low to say the least -- but I am sensitive to your point. Thank you for raising it. Rama 08:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2005_French_civil_unrest

Ouaip, chuis en train de chercher la catégorie qui va bien ; tiens, category:French society ~~n'existe pas encore ;-)~~ (ah si tiens, elle existe, faut que je révise mon alphabet) Cdang|write me 08:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bon, j'ai par contre remis quelques truc sur la page d'origine, histoire d'être un peu plus neutre.

A+

Cdang|write me 08:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Explain "Trigger" Edit please

Please provide more explanation than, "Reverted edits by AntelopeInSearchOfTruth to last version by Rama"

I provided an explanation, "This paragraph is about an EVENT that TRIGGERED the riots (namely, the death of the 2 youths). Trigger is too vague."

Explain your edits, please.

AntelopeInSearchOfTruth [1:21 pm (Pacific Time), Nov 8th]

Explanation is as follow: the "Rollback" button is situated exactly at the same place that the "Next edit" one. I thought that the revert had not gone through, with the slow speed that the server has been experiencing. If I had known, I would have cancelled this revert.

Sorry for this false manoeuver. Rama 21:43, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Um, but it still says "Trigger". Do you mind if I put it back?

AntelopeInSearchOfTruth [2:32 pm (Pacific Time), Nov 8th]

Not at all ! I think your edit makes lots of sense. Rama 23:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

France riots

I thought it was some jew hating (in good english, a racist) islamist (I'm not a Jew) who kept deleting my link to The Birth of Eurabia by Bat Ye'or, so that's why I was puting it back.

But, surprise, it was a Wikipedia admin!

I put a link to a very well documented study that helps to understand the background of many aspects of my country's present situation. It is not a propaganda pamphlet and was written by someone recognized as an authority on the subject of Islam's relations with other cultures. It quotes historical facts, not ideological theories or opinions.

It is un-objective to call it "extremist propaganda". It looks to me that you might not like the readers to have access to information that goes well beyond the officially accepted explanation of "poverty" and "frustration" of "youths" "without a future". Besides, I could give lots of factual proofs against this "official" (and to me, totally distorted) view: I was born and raised in the "banlieue" and I witnessed the effects of massive, assisted, immigration from our south at the start of it in the 70s. Ever seen the son of a vietnamese immigrant burning cars?

But Wikipedia is not a forum but an encyclopedia. As such, it is its duty to remain as impartial as possible. The best way to do so is to quote a variety of information sources from which the readers can form their own opinion. Is this deemed dangerous?

If I were 30 years younger I would maybe bomb the Nouvel Obs for its downright lies and dissimulations but I would not delete the links to it: anybody with two eyes knows it's political correctness trash.

Ban my IP (which means nothing and is not mine anyway), others will come.

I have taken the liberty to move your entry at the bottom, where is belongs by usually accepted, yet unwritten, convention.

I have been among the people who removed your "Eurabia" link, but by no means the only one. I suggest that you reconsider your efforts to include this link in the light of the fact that it is not welcome by a number of editors. Note that regarding this editorial as an "extremist" one is by no means a view which is unique to me.

Your point of quoting as various sources as possible has been addressed. The conclusion for now is that we do not wish to overrepresent extremist or anecdotical points of view. You are welcome to discuss this on the talk page if you feel that you have insights to share on the domain.

I mush solemnly warn you against the temptation to disrupt Wikipedia by further reverting this article. Resorting to various IP addresses will not help you in this task (I assume you are not naive enough to think that the only reason for which Wikipedia has not crumbled under the weight of trolls would be that you are the very first to think of using several IPs) and will only have the effect to discredit your point. Rama 23:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since you apparently think yourself above my warnings, I have been forced to report you.

I would like to size the opportunity to say that by claiming that "If I were 30 years younger I would maybe bomb the Nouvel Obs", you place yourself no higher than the rioters for whom you seem to have such hatred -- not to mention the more mundane and trivial matters of possible legal action for physical threats and calls to violence. Rama 00:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Prone to extrapolate my words... (hatred for the rioters, "physical threats", "calls to violence", confusion between indicative and conditional, etc). Demonization underway? I know that trick. Read my words again. Impartial encyclopedia admin, hem?

It will be my reward if my links open the eyes of a few, the few hours they stay on. Mind you, burning cars helps also: every car burnt awakens a few more voters. That's what annoys France's government (not the damages or the murders). If Le Pen wins (which could solve one problem but create others) that would ruin their juicy swindling. "Touche pas au grisbi!" (sounds familiar?).

(ah, and sorry about misplacing my answer, the chronological order in this section is somewhat confusing)

Calls to violence are despicable, whether at the indicative or the conditional. The recent events have shown that they also can lead to arrest and prosecution. I will leave you meditating on your hypothetical bombing of the Nouvel Observateur. Rama 14:39, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

George W. Bus

I undeleted this (which redirects to George W. Bush) because it's probably a reasonably common keyboard error. --Tony Sidaway^t 11:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Licensing Request

You request that I use CC-by-sa on my image has been done. Thanks Victortan 19:16, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

well, thank you. Rama 13:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding User:MONGO's RfA [4]

MONGO has stated that a series of edits to the 2003 Invasion of Iraq article: [5][6][7][8] was a playful joke on you. [9][10] Is this true? Do you have any sort of insight into this? -- Mr. Tibbs 08:08, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did not understand it as it then, as User:MONGO says, and looking back at it, I should say that it does not strike me as very funny. That said, I have no reason to doubt User:MONGO's word. Rama 09:34, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was, "ribbing" you...to some degree, deliberately trying to be provocative, and wrong to do so. It was in bad taste. I'm glad that you weren't offended and I appreciate your maturity in overlooking my immaturity on this issue. That said, I sincerely appreciate your vote and will ensure that if at any time you feel that I offend you, do not hesitate to tell me.--MONGO 21:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2005 Paris riots again

The problem user on that article seems to have followed me there from Israeli Arab. I apologise for bringing him on your heads. You can also see his handiwork at Israeli West Bank Barrier. It's not very easy to discuss things with him, especially given his chaotic and bizarre approach, including more than once reverting his own edits as POV for the "other side". All i can advise is patience and steadfastness. Palmiro | Talk 17:04, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO RfA

Surprised and delighted that you voted to support me on my RfA. I think they didn't count it, but your feedback was still very much appreciated, Rama. Your vote still meant a lot to me. I'll do everything I can to ensure that you know that you made a good choice. Thanks!--MONGO 09:32, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-acoustic Guitar

I noticed you edited this. I've been wondering if such a thing exists for a while. Do you know anything about them? I took out the picture you added, since it was an electric guitar, and from the article, that doesn't sound like what they're talking about. I've raised the question on the talk page of whether that article should just be a redirect to acoustic guitar. Friday (talk) 15:51, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, they do exist, as you see.

Semi-acoustic guitars are electrical guitars. The body is used to amplify and modify the sound as picked up by the coils. I can assure you that the Emperor is very typically a semi-acoustic guitar -- actually with a larger body than most of these. Rama 16:00, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]