User talk:Rama/archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 school IP block 2 Thank you for your support 3 thanks for your illustration 4 Acknowledged. 5 Block 6 Oops 7 Revert 8 Nicola Calipari 9 Did you know you and I are the same person? 10 Image:Lincoln battalion salute.jpg 11 RfC TDC 12 Image:MuseeMarine-ShakoMarine.jpg 13 User:217.44.138.172 14 indefinite blocks for IP addresses 15 Document Term matrix 16 Thanks ... 17 Re Harry Potter drawings 18 Ampelmännchen 19 Oral sex images 20 From 209.121.69.115 (re Tito) 21 Natalinasmpf 22 FAO: RAMA 23 NickOfCyprus 24 British Spelling 25 Your Iraq War revert 26 My 1500th edit 27 help w/ self-censorship 28 Chip Berlet 29 Flammekueche 30 "Animal Farm" comment by kinneyboy90 31 French flag 32 Etiquette Question 33 Image:Vigilant-blason.jpg 34 Call for Help: Colour blindness design 35 Please explain. 35.1 Austerlitz Minor Copyedit 36 Excuse me 37 Premonition 38 Off-topic deletion 39 Agriculture 39.1 Just for the record 40 Thank you for the Nemo 41 UN and EU pictures 42 WP:NOT 43 Belle Poule 44 Thanks 45 Politics of Iraq 46 Image:Langes_schwert_lm70573.jpg 47 Featured picture - comments requested 48 Re: MONGO 49 Smallsword.jpg 50 Al-Qaeda bombings 51 Screw yourself

[edit] school IP block

Rama, I wouldn't bother with a one-hour block, even for a school ID. For a repeat offence give at least a 24hr block. Hopefully if someone other than the perpetrator finds they are blocked, they will realise why, tell someone, and action can be taken at the school end. DJ Clayworth 13:33, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, my idea behind it was that it would prevent the silly kid from editing and have him go back to playing in the yard, while not baring someone else more contructively-minded from contributing. I don't know to which extend this works though ! :) Rama 13:46, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for your support

Thank you for supporting my candidacy for administrator. Kelly Martin 15:12, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] thanks for your illustration

I enjoyed your sex position illustrations very much. They are excellently done. Thank you. Xah Lee 21:12, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)

[edit] Acknowledged.

You had me confused there, for a second, though. 206.255.13.8 02:46, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Block

You blocked an anon IP without treating the other editor in the dispute similarly see history. From what I can see User:206.255.13.8 also reverted 3 times. Since this is my first block I was surprised to see that 1) A person who reverts without even commenting on my objections on the talk page is assumed to be in the right, and 2) when reading the 3RR material you pointed me to I am surprised that you applied the block to only one of the editors in the dispute. User:205.188.116.200.

I don't have to block people who exceed the 3RR, I am authorised to do so. In this case, I assumed that one of the users was more disturbing than the other one, and left the second the benefit of the doubt, leaving him a warning about the matter.

I hope that this will de-surprise you. Rama 14:18, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oops

Yikes, I seem to have read the diff wrong just now at Guantanamo Bay. I thought I was removing the "Anti-American" from Amnesty Int. subheading. I never thought I would say it: Thanks for reverting me! -- Viajero | Talk 16:10, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I also though that. Diffs can be a mess, I did goof on this very page yesterday too. Cheers ! Rama 07:04, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Revert

Why did you revert Aparthied without providing any substantive to the discussion? 69.218.27.27 29 June 2005 15:33 (UTC)

Because this particular edit was an element of a revert war, for which discussion had been provided. You are welcome to discuss your own suggested edits and craft them in collaboration with other editors until everyone is agreed and the edit can be comited into the article without disturbance. Rama 29 June 2005 20:14 (UTC)

[edit] Nicola Calipari

Are you sure he had the rank of Major General? I had seen his rank listed elsewhere as Major. 149.123.64.150 29 June 2005 19:08 (UTC)

Not really any more sure than anyone... but the report of the US Army says so:

11. (U) Mr. Nicola Calipari was an Italian military intelligence officer with the rank of Major General who was in charge of the recovery of Ms. Sgrena on 4 March 2005. (Annex 104C).

12. (U) Mr. Andrea Carpani is an Italian military intelligence officer with the rank of Major in the Carabinieri with years of experience working and driving in Baghdad. He was driving the car involved in the incident on 4 March 2005. (Annex 104C).

Cheers ! Rama 29 June 2005 20:11 (UTC)

Oh, now I see why I was confused. Thank you! 128.122.90.160 3 July 2005 15:22 (UTC)

[edit] Did you know you and I are the same person?

Do you remember a user named Paradigmbuff, who was acting up in the articles on Paul Bremer and the Coalition Provisional Authority? They returned using a handful of new identities. I recently revealed in the Coalition Provisional Authority talk page about their multiple identities. They responded by accusing you and I of being the same person. I guess that makes us something like blood-brothers. Lol -- Geo Swan July 6, 2005 22:37 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Lincoln battalion salute.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Lincoln battalion salute.jpg. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Until a more informative tag is provided, it will be listed as {{no source}} or {{no license}}. Could you add a better tag to let us know its source and/or copyright status? If you made the image yourself, an easy way to deal with this is add {{GFDL}} if you're willing to release it under the GFDL. Alternatively, you could release all rights to it by adding {{NoRightsReserved}}. This would allow anyone to do whatever they wish with your image, without exceptions. However, if it isn't your own image, you need to specify what free license it was distributed under. You can find a list of the tags here. If it was not distributed under a free license, but you claim fair use, add {{fairuse}} but you need to substantiate your claim by explaining why you think it's fair use. If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images by posting to my talk page. If you do this, I can tag them for you. Thanks. RedWolf 05:11, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Also Image:Oliver Law fighting.jpg RedWolf 05:22, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Also Image:Oliver Law fighting2.jpg

Hi ! I had completely forgotten these... I am afraid that these images date back from a time where I was not as sensibilised to copyright issues than I was back then -- I used to think that material from the Spanish Civil War would be in the Public Domain then, which is wrong by a wide margin.

The images seem to come from http://www.alba-valb.org/albadetau.htm

By my standards, I would not claim them for fair use, since they are not used to illustrate a point about the exhibition, but to illustrate something which the exhibition is about; that said, I think that "fair use" laws of the USA are less strict than those to which I am accustomed, so you might know better.

My present me would tend to erase these, though.

Thank you for your vigilance ! Rama 07:48, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfC TDC

Hi, I just noticed this: Wikipedia:Policy_enforcement_log#TDC. Perhaps you could add the details of the recent blocks to it. By being up to date, the RfC can serve as a useful basis for requesting arbitration. -- Viajero | Talk 14:27, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:MuseeMarine-ShakoMarine.jpg

Hi Rama, concerning this picture you´ve uploaded on commons, I have two questions: In which (french ?) naval historical museum did you made the picture and is the shako (in germany called "Tschako") described in details? (Year, naval infantry, ship or something like that), CU --Herrick 08:31, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

"Musée de la Marine" in Paris (Trocadéro). The sign didn't say much, and the angle of the photograph is such that it is now difficult to read. The unedited photograph is available here, if you can make something out of it :p.

A good guess is that it is a naval infantry shako of 1829. Rama 08:45, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank your for the quick answer. On the unedited photograph I´d rather need more than my glasses 8-) --Herrick 09:14, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

You are welcome ! I though that I would photograph the whole museum, but I had to face the matter of reflections on the displays, and a less than ideal light, which explains the awkard angle :p One day I will buy a camera which can be fitted with an UV filter ! Cheers ! Rama 09:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:217.44.138.172

Hi, I noticed you warned this user on his page. He has appeared in many IP incarnations, and has engaged not only in POV warring but repeated vandalism and obscene personal attacks. He informally refers to himself as NicktheGreek. See: Talk:La Prensa for examples, and the history of the article for some of his incarnations. I don't know what to do about a user like this but you are an admin and also have experience with this user so perhaps you do. Thanks. --TJive 16:09, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Depending on cases, I would try to talk some sense into salvageable users; in this case, I just blocked the cretin. Feel free to drop me a note if he returns in some other incarnation. Thank you for your notice Rama 18:22, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] indefinite blocks for IP addresses

You made the following blocks yesterday:

• 18:20, July 18, 2005 Rama blocked "User:81.152.134.225" with an expiry time of indefinite (anonymous POV warrior, vulgar insults and vandalism ("NickTheGreek"))
• 18:19, July 18, 2005 Rama blocked "User:81.152.176.136" with an expiry time of indefinite (anonymous POV warrior, vulgar insults and vandalism ("NickTheGreek"))
• 18:19, July 18, 2005 Rama blocked "User:81.152.233.79" with an expiry time of indefinite (anonymous POV warrior, vulgar insults and vandalism ("NickTheGreek"))
• 18:16, July 18, 2005 Rama blocked "User:217.44.138.172" with an expiry time of indefinite (anonymous POV warrior, vulgar insults and vandalism)

It is inappropriate to give ordinary IP addresses an indefinite block, as doing so will only serve to block legitimate users. Clearly the user you were trying to block has the ability to change IP addresses, so long-term blocks are futile anyway. As the policy says "For dynamic IPs, such blocks should last 24 hours". I've removed the four indefinite blocks listed above - if the vandal does return, please be careful to block IPs for 24 hours rather than indefinately. Thanks. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 13:32, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, my mistake. Thank you for sorting this. Rama 13:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

No problem. It's all too easy to do with our "fire and forget" blocking system. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 13:44, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

This is his incarnation for the day, 81.152.132.142, with the attempted goading message of, "9/11, simple as that." --TJive 15:48, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Document Term matrix

Can you help me sort it out ? If you say the last changes are correct I shut up, but it doesn't feel right to me. KH251 09:36, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks ...

... for your help and three cheers for Erik Satie! Chronographos 15:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Rama -- My apologies if this isn't the right forum, but I would love to get in touch with you to discuss your understanding of the number of legal positions in chess. This is for a book I'm working on. Could you email me at dshenk@yahoo.com if you'd be willing to discuss? Thanks, David Shenk

[edit] Re Harry Potter drawings

Umm, I got them off a Google Image search, but i cant remember the exact sites... If you want I'll try and find them again and put the URLs. Cool? Supersaiyanplough|^(talk) 04:19, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• ok i got the URLs for them, is that all? Supersaiyanplough|^(talk) 04:59, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• I emailed the author of two of the pics (Image:Dumbledore's_Army.jpg and Image:Marietta sneak.JPG) and she said its fine as long as we display a copyright noitice and a prominent link to her site. See User:Supersaiyanplough/beko. but as for the Image:Luna Lovegood.JPG a havent been abke to contact the author as yet. The URL is on the image page. Supersaiyanplough|^(talk) 21:23, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ampelmännchen

I was working on an English translation of the Ampelmännchen page from the German Wikipedia. While searching the Internet, I noticed that expatica (http://www.expatica.com/source/site_article.asp?subchannel_id=26&story_id=21927) had used your picture without attribution or any license... I'm not really familiar with how to deal with these issues, but I thought I would tell you. Tfine80 02:13, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Whow, they must have been desperate to use such a photograph ! :p I took it with a phone camera... Thank you for your notice, I just dropped them a quick message inspired from Wikipedia:Standard GFDL violation letter. Thank you, nice article by the way ! Rama 08:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

No problem... It was an interesting first for me. Feels good to help uphold the GFDL. Tfine80 16:06, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I have just got a very nice e-mail from the team of the site, they are most helpful. Nice thing to have a little more advertisement for Wikipedia ! :) Rama 14:00, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oral sex images

Rama, the edits of mine you reverted were both public domain and demonstrated the subject matter in much better clarity than ancient black & white photos or crude sketches. I'm sorry you're so easily offended. Living is easy with eyes closed, no doubt. Legomancer 16:00, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

For what I have seen, your documents were not likely to be in the Public Domain (In the Pubic Domain, yes, but not Public). Do you happen to have any proof supporting your claim ? Rama 16:08, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Your above tactic is mentioned specifically in the article Wikipedia:How to spot vandalism under Disguised Vandalism and Stalking. Third full paragraph, starting with the third sentence: "...[T]his includes picture removal. It may also include erasing text and then falsely claiming it was copyrighted. Those who are allowed to continue on as disguised vandals, one day become admins who make sure that all disguised vandals win their edit wars." Kudos on being a responsible Admin (sarcasm added). In the future I'll not bother to contribute images, though I fail to see how 2 images constitutes "Saturating an article" - Nor do I see how a grainy black & white and 2 charcoal sketches are "better." --Legomancer 00:55, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Simple: They aren't porn and the source is clear. --84.139.112.38 03:27, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I am really sorry, but the source of these images was far from clear. There was no link provided; no Public Domain tag; the photograph can hardly have been made by a photographer dead for over 70 years; and is the people involved were personnel of the military of the USA, their uniforms were nowhere to be seen.

Please provide a source and proof that the images are indeed Public Domain, and then feel free to re-upload them and accept my apologies. As for now, there is absolutely nothing to induce me into thinking that this wasn't simply a gross copyright violation and provocative edit. Rama 07:34, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, my post got messed up. What I meant was: They ARE porn and the source ISNT'T clear.

It seems too easy to label any picture that would fit the heading of "Oral Sex" as pornographic. Since the express purpose of oral sex is to cause sexual arousal, how would you have a complete and accurate article that doesn't contain pornographic elements? Further discussion is probably pointless. We'll just have to agree to disagree. If you feel I'm overstepping the bounds of good-taste or netiquette feel free to revert what I've done or send me an email.--Legomancer 08:51, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I am not talking about whether or not these images are pornographic. I am concerned about their copyright status. A Free photograph, if better than what we have, is very welcome to be joined in the article, by me. Rama 09:09, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I just thought you should know, that User:R jayz vandalized the article on oral sex again, since you threatened to ban him. I think that would really be a good idea by now. --Mütze 01:46, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] From 209.121.69.115 (re Tito)

Thank you Rama, I’ll have that on mind. However, I discussed my changes at TALK pages and encouraged other people to do that. Some other people didn’t do that. It’s about the word “dictator”. Tito was communist dictator as dictatorship was a typical model of communist government: no democratic elections, no freedom of speech, no freedom of business initiative, no protection of private property. That is not just “sometimes perceived” – that is a historic fact. It was always perceived by democratic world. “Unilateral communist leadership” <lol> – Tito was president “without any time limit of his mandate”. He is described as dictator, in Columbia Encyclopedia.

I am not discussing the content of your edit, but the work methodology. Your edit was not agreed to by other users, and you seem to be trying to sort of force it into the article nonetheless. Another user seems to be trying to work on a formulation based of what you said, so I suggest that you discuss with him to see what you two exactly mean and the nuances that you want to convoy rather than reverting the article. Thank you for your message and for minding this. Rama 11:03, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Natalinasmpf

I think Natalina is perfectly capable of defending herself. I didn't not attack her personally, but mere engaged her in forthright discussion about the non-difference of the two terms. Barneygumble 13:39, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Things like "Go read Animal Farm for homework" could be misunderstood as personal attacks. Just understand this as an invitation to word your messages with more care. Rama 13:43, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] FAO: RAMA

Hi Rama, I am the guy who is currently involved in an edit war with one "J. Parker Stone" at La Prensa, I have decided to change my ways and consistently asked him to air why he is changing my original article. He has so far provided no reply. I am getting a little sick of the fact he is allowed to edit at will without providing a reason (keep in mind I created the article and he was the one to first edit without any reason), I addressed his original concerns over the quote "Blatant Bias", and a few other things. Now he continues to revert at will without any reason. For example, I have explained to him the figures showing US GO's 'Aid' To La Prensa have been officially released by the NED and other institutions so it cannot be worded that these figures are 'estimates'. Yet he continues to revert it as such. I am prepared to have a sit down, evidently he does not have the evidence to back up his consistent reverting.

Thanks.--GreekWarrior 03:38, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NickOfCyprus

I know you must have noticed this new user, who has shown up with threatening and harassing messages already on the talk pages of one of his anons, Talk:La Prensa, and User talk:Trey Stone. Ironically his is an anti-nationalist message. --TJive 23:50, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I have seen it. Actually, I sort of think of this as a positive step: now that this person shows up as an identified user, we can post to his talk page, direct messages at him, and hopefully educate him into contributing in a proper manner. Quite a challenge, for sure, but this is a step in this direction I think. Cheers ! Rama 06:49, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] British Spelling

I've noticed that you have been standardizing articles to British spelling. Please note that the difference -ise and -ize is not UK vs US. If -ize is consistently used in an article (British/European topic), there is no need to change it. It is perfectly all right to use -ize in British English. In British academic publications, -ize is often even preferred. See [1]. If you're interested, there is a spelling guide on my user page. SpNeo 16:20, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I had recently become aware of this subtlety; for non-native speakers, it is always interesting to learn things like this. Cheers ! Rama 23:03, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your Iraq War revert

Hi, I'm actually 207.162.228.12 (I was logged out at the time). You reverted my change to a previous version, which was also mine. Anyway, I wanted to know why you reverted it. The paragraph I was modifying was awkwardly-written and light on facts. It listed coalition-of-the-willing countries for no apparent reason, since that information is linked elsewhere in the article. I was adding important information, a view of the Security Council prevalent among a substantial number, that's not available elsewhere in the article. Korny O'Near 23:54, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Your edit [2] was coming from an anonymous IP, removed information and left the relevant part mostly explaining the opposition of France, Germany, UN, ... through their corruption and interests in Iraq

Some governments and media have called the good faith of the Security Council into question on this matter: strong evidence exists that the Oil for Food program illegally benefited the United Nations, along with Russia, China and France, the three opponents of the Iraq War on the Security Council. Under this explanation the leaders of these three countries fought against a second UN resolution not out of higher principle but out of fear that they would lose the military contracts, and any future oil-for-food vouchers, that their countries enjoyed with the Saddam Hussein regime. [3] Additionally, the resistance of the Security Council and the UN as whole has been attributed to Anti-Americanism and a resentment of the cultural and economic dominance of the USA.

As such, might have mistaken your edit four one of these innumerable gems of wisdoms that Foxnews-informed anonymous contributors often like to share. I am sorry for the mistake; perhaps you might consider re-wording the said part for such confusion to become less likely. Thank you for your message. Rama 12:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Re-word it how? I frankly don't see what was wrong with it. As I said, the parts I removed were information that belonged, and was available, elsewhere, like that strange list of European countries contributing, or filler like "There is still on-going discussion in the UK whether the war was actually legal, and the final verdict has yet to be reached." (There's still on-going discussion everywhere about the issue). I can keep and expand that currently-vague first sentence ("The United States and United Kingdom claimed it was a legal action...") - I thought it was said elsewhere, but it looks like it isn't. How's that? [oh, oops, this is Korny O'Near again - I keep using different computers and forgetting to log myself in.]

Confirming that this is me. Korny O'Near 12:52, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I think that a version with a clearer explanation of "what countries" and "what media" would fit; so basically, the USA (Do you happen to know whether UK officially questioned the good faith of her European partners?), and right-wing media, especially Murdock-owned ones. What do you think? Thank you! Rama 12:59, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I think your references to right-wing media betray your own biases on the subject. This story of corruption (and I'm not arguing the merits of the story pro or con) was widespread; here's the Washington Post, for example. It was not raised officially by any governments, U.S. or otherwise, but it was certainly covered by media both right and left. Anyway, if you don't have any further objections I'll write it up again with your criticisms in mind. Korny O'Near 15:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I meant that these stories were indeed reported by probably all media, put the perspective which they offered was quite different, and "[calling] the good faith of the Security Council into question on this matter" is probably a feature of a very precise set of media.

Anyway, thank you for your work and discussion. Rama 15:23, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My 1500th edit

Thank you Rama for your congratulation! It has been a pleasure getting this far... Brequinda 07:58, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] help w/ self-censorship

I'd like to help with the self-censorship article. I found your name on its talk page and assumed you were watching or maintaining it in some way. Forgive my caution - I'm new so I don't want to step on anyone's toes. However, the article is very sensational and justly deserves an NPOV flag. I'd like to help fix these problems and expand it. Let me know if you are attempting some research or know of anyone who is, so that I don't duplicate effort.

[edit] Chip Berlet

Thank you, Rama. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:43, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Flammekueche

That's a nice looking one that you've put in the Alsace article. I have a picture of one that I made a couple of weeks ago that I was going to insert but yours is better. It looks as if you use a lot more bacon (or lardons or whatever) than I do -- which only makes it better, of course. I'll cook another one in a couple of weeks and see if I can get better pix than either of us has so far: yours is a little too red, I think. Also I'll write up a recipe and make an article about it for the Recipes section. Bon appetit! Hayford Peirce 17:13, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Animal Farm" comment by kinneyboy90

Hey, watch it guys, I read "Animal Farm", it's a great book! Don't be dissin' my homedog G. Orwell! I would greatly appreciate it.

[edit] French flag

You seem to have removed my French flag edit. Please see my contriution to the Dutch flag section of France talk.

scotthatton

Rama: Could you please answer this query and why you reverted my edit to the previous revision. This whole paragraph on the French flag origin as restored is dubious:-

Description of the flag: three equal vertical bands of blue (hoist side), white, and red became the flag during the French Revolution and made popular by Marquis de Lafayette; known as the drapeau tricolore (Tricolour Flag); alledgedly, blue and red chosen as the colours of Paris and white as the colour of the king, however it is unlikely that this is correct, since by 1789 the colours of Paris were no longer in use; much more probable is that Lafayette just adopted the colours of the American Revolution (blue, red and white). The design and colours inspired a large number of other flags, including those of Belgium, Chad, Ireland, Italy, Côte d'Ivoire, and Luxembourg.

- The use of the word "probable" is wrong. There is no evidence that the French flag's colours come from the US flag. It is good to quote it is a theory, along with the Dutch flag but the use of the word 'probable' is pejorative.

- The Luxembourg flag was not inspired by the French flag. It comes from Luxembourg being ruled by the house of Orange from 1815 - 1890.

P.S. I am not Dutch - I have an interest in vexicology and do not like theories beign posted as virtual fact.

Scotthatton 09:20, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

This question has been raised before, as can be seen on the talk page (or maybe one of the archives). Rama 10:23, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I couldn't find the archive but what I did next was to move this section from the France page to where is belongs anyway - the page about the flag of France. Perhaps discussion can continue there... All the best. Scotthatton 10:48, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh yes, good idea !

Do let me know if you manage to get your hands over a flag of the ancien régime (white with fleur de lis) or of the French Revolution, I have been seeking them for ages ! So good continuation ! Rama 10:51, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Here are two sites: http://perso.wanadoo.fr/pierre.gay/EngPages/MetroHis and of course the "official" Flags of the World page on the subject: http://www.nationalflaggen.de/flags-of-the-world/flags/fr_mon.html. As the FOTW site says, flags before the eighteenth century were a bit of a wooly subject! Scotthatton

Oh yes, I had an idea of what they looked like, I mainly meant photographs of flags of the time, or paintings where the flag can be seen; I am a little bit after things which we could put on Wikipedia (an ancient painting could be used, since it'd be in the public domain, but re-creations of the flags cannot). Bah, I should use Gimp and craft one myself :p Rama 14:15, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Etiquette Question

Is it okay to make minor grammatical/spelling corrections to an article without posting/requesting permission in Discussion first? I'm speaking only about changing things like 'teh' to 'the' and breaking run-ons into separate sentences. No changing of words/word-order except when necessary for readability (sentences ending in prepositions, undefined pronouns, etc). No change in article structure/informational content. --Legomancer 00:07, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, no problem ! You just make the necessary corrections, put "copyedit" or "spelling" as Edit summary, and mark the edit as a Minor edit. That's a very useful sort of edit, so do make yourself at home about that ! :) Rama 06:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Vigilant-blason.jpg

Image deletion warning

Image:Vigilant-blason.jpg has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. If you feel that this image should not be deleted, please go there to voice your opinion.

[edit] Call for Help: Colour blindness design

Hi! Can you help me? I noticed you talked about colour blindness somewhere, so I think maybe you are colour-blind. I have some a website, which also has some wikis (no relation to Wikipedia nor Wikimedia), and I would like to ensure that the various colours I use on the website and its images are suitable for colour-blind people. I would like you to help me by having a look and consulting me what colours I have to change for accessibility. If you are so kind to consult me by actually having a look at my colours, then you can start by visiting User:Www.wikinerds.org/Colour-check. If you don't have much time to actually check it, but you still want to help, then please refer me to other ccolour-blind people and tell me what colours are visible by colour-blind people. Thank you very much for reading my call for help! Www.wikinerds.org 09:05, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I'll try to answer tomorrow. Cheers ! Rama 12:10, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!! Www.wikinerds.org 19:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, here am I again ! (with flying colours, thanks the Standard Model !)

So, in the order:

• [4] The image is readable, but I'll never know whether the main colour is rather green, yellow or orange :p
• [5] (5/6) and (7/8), are difficult to distinguish for me: I can do it if they are next to each other, because the difference in luminosity is clearer then, but is they stand surrounded by other colours, it requires several journeys back and forth before I can make my mind
• [6] I can sense some difference in luminosity between the two lines, but that's about it; also, it stands out on the lone image, but less so on the page...
• [7] This is very much all right. Especially this neat keyboard, I need of of them and Oh look, there is the GSL reference book, I ordered one last week ! W00t, geek stuff !! (back to my mind)

Here, you can see a good example of what is clearly readable for me, for instance with the calendar; the difference in luminosity are very understandable for a colour-blind person.

• [8]. Same.

So, basically: depending on the colour blindness type, you'll have different problems; mine are with violet (I never got to actually understand what violet is; people sometimes people point me to something blue telling me that it is violet, sometimes I lose at Frozen Bubble for no clear reason (OK, more often than that, and it's not the only reason, but it still feeld unfair ;) ).

On the other hand, we are more sensitive to intensity than normal people, both because we have more sensors for this, and also because we are used to try and compensate deficient colour input with intensity (for instance, a friend of mine had once photocopied a coat of arms and lost the original; yet I was able to accurately describe the colours to her from the black and white photocopy :p ).

The best way to avoid most of them is to think your page as if it was seen in complete black and white: if something cannot be distinguished then, change either the colour, or the intensity. If you cannot, use patterns. If you cannot, well... can't be helped, can it ? :)

One last thing: thanks for caring ! Rama 17:40, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Hey, thank you very much for your great help! I'll try to re-draw the images and provide more intensity differentiation wherever it's needed, because I want to provide the most accessible design I can. May I ask you to help me again for colourblind-friendly design tips in the future if I need any more? Thanks again! Www.wikinerds.org 19:42, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I'll try to answer what I can if the need arises again, certainly. Good work ! Rama 11:51, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please explain.

Hi,

I believe my change on the Austerlitz battle was obviously correct. Can you please explain why you reverted to the previous version - this is my first change to the wiki and I'm not very familiar with how things work (I'm sorry if I caused trouble...)

Best regards, Diodor Bitan

I think that I understand the misunderstanding now.

At first, I though that you edit was either some sort of joke, or an error, in the idea that the military campain was taking place in Austria, not in France. Now, thinking back, I suppose that you yourself read "Campaign of Austria" as "campain led by Austria" (and obviously, leading a campain agaist yourself makes little sense indeed).

The terminology "Campaign of Austria" is a translation of the French term for this ("campagne d'Autriche"); It might make little sense translated litterally in English, so we might want to find something which does not clash; perhaps mentionning how the event is called in different countries might be considered -- Napoleonic_war#The_Third_Coalition doesn't seem to help much on this respect.

Sorry for the abrupt reaction to your edit, I hope that this won't shake your motivation to contribute and perhaps join as a registrated user. Cheers ! Rama 11:15, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Austerlitz Minor Copyedit

Touché! Dabbler 12:59, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Excuse me

if you're going to question an image I've uploaded and accuse me of stealing, I'd appreciate if you'd sign your name to it--I-2-d2 15:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I am not questionning your honesty or good faith, you might well be unaware of some of our rules, since you seem to be a rather new editor. Copyright and licence issues might seem tedious, but they are very important and make a good proportion of the strengh of Wikipedia.

Incidentally, my name is on the history of the image, and on your talk page, naturally. Rama 15:08, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Premonition

I sense that your near legendary patience is about to be tested. Will your wiki stress level rise? All signs point to no! Hipocrite 18:35, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Off-topic deletion

Why did you revert the deletion of text that is in absolutely NO way connected to the article and only consists of personal attacks and their defences? NightBeAsT 16:23, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I didn't seem so out of topic to me; and if the debate is heated, it isn't a reaons for removal. I suggest jsut leaving the thing where it is until the page gets archived. Rama 16:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, "Poland will crumble" is about a known vandal who hates Poland and insults on probably any talk-pages he sees, this time saying "Poland are Slaves' countries parasiting in 100% at the lands of other nations". This is followed by a comment expressing disapproval of the vandal's remark and says "I do not support the POV of Flying Kvaker! I'm pretty sure nobody who has the ability to think does!'." Halibutt then starts his personel retelling of the vandal's past while "Micha" makes a joke because he thinks that "we have to take this guy with humor". Last but not least Witkacy insults the vandal as an "Anti-Polish racist" and jokes that this talk page is a good example for anti-polonism.

"Sorry Molobo" deals completely with a personal dispute between molobo and an ip which refers to itself as "Volker". Volker accuses Molobo of a lack of humanism because Molobo said that Dresden, Nagasaki and Hiroshima are no crimes on his talk page. Molobo then tries to defend himself copying text from wikipedia articles connected to those quite controversial events of World War II and pasted them in this section. The article about Anti-Polonism has actually nothing to do with them. Although Jpbrenna and later Micha remark that the discussion is "straying off-topic", Halibutt, Volker and probably soon Molobo found themselves offended and continued to comment on it.

How do you think the discussion could be forced on-topic without having to delete previous absolutely off-topic statements? NightBeAsT 16:54, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to ask you if you could could swap the protected version with either that of either "18:47, 14. Aug 2005" (comparing to the current:[9], as you can see the changes are not unreasonable) or "23:25, 14. Aug 2005"(comparing to the current:[10]), the latter containing the edits of Alx-pl. Both version are ok except for the tag, which should be {{disputed}} instead of {{totallydisputed}} as the neutrality is currently not disputed, only more than four "facts", whose verification no one could provide up till now, and so according to the guideline Wikipedia:Disputed statement ("If there are more than 5 dubious statements, or if a dispute arises: First, insert a "Disputed" section in the talk page to describe the problem. This will help focus contributions from others. Insert {{disputed}} in the beginning of the article to add a general warning. Check dispute resolution for ways to resolve it.") an accuracy dispute should be marked, not concealed as some others are constantly trying to do. Thank you in advance. NightBeAsT 00:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I would be glad to help, but I reckon that the topic is quite complicated and I am completely unaware of what happened on this page before. I must say that I am not very pleased with my own intervention of the talk page, seen from now. I think that the safest course to take would be to talk the the sysop who protected the page. Cheers ! Rama 08:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

In actual fact I addressed the admin responsible on the day of the protection, on User talk:Longhair. His reply was ... ummm ... he didn't reply. Oh well, then let's just wait until the page protection expires. That will give'em more time to verify their "facts" and therefore enough time to realise that these unverifiable "facts" will have to be excluded as soon as the article gets unprotected anyway =) NightBeAsT 14:12, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Agriculture

It was not Agriculture who nominated EvilMonkey's page for deletion, it was an imposter troll who spelled his name AgricuIture. 09:41, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Oh dear. And I was checking Agriculture's contributions with puzzlement when I got your message. Thank you for noticing and taking care of the thing. Rama 09:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Exactly the reason why I'm leaving. Admins who decide to go reem someone out without even checking the facts. This is why the trolls and vandals run Wikipedia. Agriculture 16:41, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I find your "without even checking the facts" rather harsh, given the mistake was detected hours before your message. Rama 16:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Detected before my message, but not before you slammed me for something an imposter did on my talk page. Agriculture 16:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

You might find my talk page interesting and informative. Agriculture 17:28, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I have made an error, for which I have apologised to you -- the mistake was issuing you a mere warning, it's not like I blocked you or anything. I do not really understand what exactly you want from me now, but I find that for someone who created the sort of trouble and disruption that you did with you "project", you do not easily forgive honest mistakes.

I certainly recognise my error, but I shan't carry the burden of everthing that is wrong in Wikipedia for it. Rama 17:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah but we both know you probably would have if Zoe hadn't piped up. The point is Rama, Wikipedia is turning into one huge knee-jerk that the trolls can abuse, and you're part of the problem. Not all of Wikipedia's problems rest on your shoulder, but they larger rest on the shoulders of the collective admins who let shit like this fly and don't take their job seriously. As for "my project" causing disruption and trouble. Bullshit. The project was there to encourage discussion, then Zscout370 VfD'ed it without even going to the talk page. Not only did he do it without going to the talk page to see what it was about, he admits he then spammed IRC to get people to slam the project and bring it down. So you know what? Screw you for again not looking into matters before slamming something. If Zscout had either a) Went to talk first, or b) Not tried to stir up trouble on IRC this whole thing would have gone pretty smoothly and without incident. Agriculture 18:13, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Just for the record

I'm not assuming bad faith on your part, just so you know, just incompetence. Agriculture 18:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Well I am assuming, on your part, good faith, surprising unability to forsee the predictable pandemonium that starting such a "project" -- rather than suggesting a policy bee studied -- would unavoidably unleash, understandable frustration at the result, and a rather harsh reaction to a mistake of no consequence made while trying to bring back order. And deplorable language. As to whether you are making yourself justice by that, I leave this to you. Rama 22:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for the Nemo

Thanks for the attractive and personalised Nemo. I am glad that you do not think I am stalking you just to correct your English, but realise that I am only trying to help. And thanks for all your hard work getting those French naval entries together, they have really improved Battle of Trafalgar. Now we need to find an interested Spanish person! Dabbler 15:40, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, you do more than try, for sure ! :) Rama 15:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] UN and EU pictures

I wonder if I could copy these pictures and descriptions (Alle Menschen werden Brüder, wo dein sanfter Flügel weilt and United Nations : it's your world) from your talk page and use them for mine too. You know, I've a great respect for both the UN and the EU. NightBeAsT 01:30, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

The images a under a Free licence; as for the rest, feel free to help yourself. Rama 01:35, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, well, who'd have thought someone goes to bed as late as I do. Thanks for the pictures =) NightBeAsT 01:46, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WP:NOT

You're right, it isn't a democracy...it's just our little playground due to the insistance of some that things like images and pictures of autofellatio and drawings of "doggystyle" sex are "encyclopedic". Please stop trolling my talk page.--MONGO 09:47, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

"drawings of "doggystyle" sex" ? So having drawings of doggystyle sex harms the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia to the point where it become so impractible as to become a "playground" ? Well you a very welcome to fill in a WP:RFC on me for contributing drawings, if you wish, I would be rather interested to see the outcome. Rama 13:57, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Belle Poule

Can you explain why you keep recreating the page on Belle Poule at French ship Belle Poule? This is not in agreement with Wikipedia's naming conventions and is an unnecessarily long name for the article. Reverting articles without any explanation is not the way to go on Wikipedia. Also, if you wish to move a page, you should follow the procedures stated at Special:Movepage/Belle Poule. But you should explain it as well. - ulayiti (talk) 11:16, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I noticed you've been doing the same with other ships as well. I think these should be moved to their proper names too, but I'll assume good faith for now until you care to respond to my message. - ulayiti (talk) 11:30, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I think that "French ship Belle Poule" in necessary by the ship naming conventions. See Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(ships)#Military_ships. Rama 13:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Or on the naming conventions page, which you refer to, for that matters:

"Articles about ships that do not have standard prefixes should be titled as (Nationality) (type) (Name); for example, Soviet aircraft carrier Kuznetsov (Soviet aircraft carrier Kuznetsov"

I tend to use "ship" for about everything because I find those "frigate" vs "destroyer", "aviso" vs "corvette" a bit tedious, but this still is in direct conformity with the convention. Though I do not object to a redirect from Belle Poule, since obviously the name is most often used to refer to one of these French ships. (there are a couple of hotels and restaurants by this name, but hardly proeminent ones) Rama 13:43, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

All right, I understand it now. The ship naming conventions sound a bit odd to me, but then again, I don't know anything about ships, so maybe it's just me... :) - ulayiti (talk) 01:01, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

No problem, it took me some time to get accustomed to. It does make sense, you know... somehow ! ;) Rama 22:14, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for the award. I think.  :) Zoe 21:05, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Politics of Iraq

Heya Rama, would you mind putting Politics of Iraq on your watchlist if it isn't already. Cheers, Christiaan 22:32, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Langes_schwert_lm70573.jpg

hi Rama -- can you tell me why you deleted that image, without bothering to go through ifd, or even notifying me? Images like Image:Machaira.jpg go undeleted for months, even though they are extremely dubitable. I, on the other hand, provided an image from my own website, stating origin and claiming fair use, and on top of that giving encyclopedic detail of this notable sword (it's not just some cheap commercial replica, but one of its kind), and you think you are justified in deleting it on a whim? I am afraid that looks a little trigger-happy to me, especially since deleted images cannot be restored as easily as deleted articles. dab (ᛏ) 09:45, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, sorry ! I just happened to have a Free image of a similar sword, also a historical one, so I though that by its licence it was superior to the Fair Use one (it is also a far higher resolution); that said, the particular historical details of this very sword had not struck me. Sorry for not notifying you, you are quite right in saying thatthere could have been more polite ways to do this. Rama 11:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Featured picture - comments requested

[11] I'm nominating one of my photos for 'featured picture'. Voting isn't for two days, but I'd appreciate your comments if you feel to add them. -- RyanFreisling @ 15:59, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

If I had a critic to make, I'd say that the dark corner in the upper right tends to attenuate the volume of the photograph, and also brings the attention from the statue; it's be intersting to try and attenuate the background, or blank it completely. Apart from this, a very godd photograph indeed. Congratulations. Rama 16:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Many thanks Rama! Interesting idea there - do you mind if I put your comment on the image's featured picture section? Also, there are a few others on my user page, if you'd like to see them. -- RyanFreisling @ 16:11, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Image:180px-AntinousPalazzoAltempsLvlAd-rama.jpg

Yes, you can go ahead with the comment. I think that Mgm has noticed the same thing as me... Seeing the two versions, I am not certain that the leveling was a progress, the way it was done; I think that the dark triangle is a problem in any case, and it might well so turn out the eye would be more attracted to the darkest part of the image, which would make me favour a white background over a dark (black ?) one. Rama 16:25, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I'll post one with a lightened background for comparison - thanks! -- RyanFreisling @ 16:34, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Done - I think your advice was spot-on. Please review [12] for your opinions, and if you like it, feel free to 'support' it. :)

[edit] Re: MONGO

Hello! I did revert some vandalism there this morning, by a vandal with a very similar name to my own. They put a period at the end of their name though. But it may be they've figured out how to duplicate my name with out the period. Weird for me, first time this has ever happened. Anyways, thanks for keeping eye out for vandalism. I should leave a note for MONGO as well. Oh, BTW, I looked at your user page and I thought to mention to you, that my father was a physicist, and always told people he met that he was a physical engineer. Your comment kind of reminded me of the old boy. See ya 'round! Hamster Sandwich 16:24, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I just intervened because you missed the "suckpuppet" thing in your revert.

It is easy to do modify one's signature using "preferences", including having it pointing to someone's userpage; if you choose a name very close to someone else's, it can become quite a pest indeed -- you can have a taste of it a little bit above on this very page, with the outraged complains of Agriculture's.

I suppose that "physical engineer" sounds less "Cuthbert Calculus" :) Rama 16:39, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

He was indeed a demon with a slide rule! Thanks again! Hamster Sandwich 16:57, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for the vandalism reversions...with all the friends I've made lately, there will probably be more to come. Thanks again.--MONGO 01:29, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Smallsword.jpg

Thanks for mentioning the CC license — I will go around and put it on the other images that I have provided too. You did a nice job with the picture editing for the Commons page by the way! Best wishes. Jll 20:59, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Al-Qaeda bombings

I vandalised the Al-Qaeda page because those Al-Qaeda bastards are planning to bomb the major finnancial hubs in Asia such as Singapore, Sydney or Tokyo. It would kill many innocent people. 219.94.83.71 15.20, 26 August 2005 (UTC

In the process of this idiotic crusade, you are disturbing Wikipedia, which shall not be tolerated. I expect you to cease this behaviour, or suffer my displeasure. Rama 15:26, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Screw yourself

In response to the comment you sent me, I say as follows that you can screw yourself. And while you are at it take your high and mighty attitude and bury it with your color vision. The only reverts I have made are when people deleted additions that I made THAT WERE PERFECTLY RELEVANT, and were deleted with no discussion what so ever. No reason given, and all were done on a topic I was more then qualified to discuss. So find something better to do then waste my time.