User talk:Rama/archive 7

Happy Holidays, Rama!!!!

Merry Christmas and happy New Year Rama!!!!!! Have a nice time - You deserved some! --PaxEquilibrium 21:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Gal_Hoar.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Gal_Hoar.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Responds?

Instead of accusing me of making up my own licences, I'd like it if you'd explain what was wrong with the permission.Rex 16:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The permission makes no mention of the GFDL. What autorises you to bring the GFDL, then ? Why the GFDL rather than any other licence ? I advice you to read our copyright policies. Rama 16:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the owners make clear that they do not care what is done with the image, then that doesn't mean they make it freely available?!Rex 16:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. And certainly not under the GFDL. Rama 19:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Explain that. If I give you an image of my cat, I made myself and tell you "Rama, you and everyone else can do with this picture whatever you want" then how come it isn't in the public domain? Rex 21:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your question is evidence of very serious misconceptions or copyright laws. In the precise case, your image would still be copyrighted, hence not public domain. Furthermore, the example you have given is different from your helmet image, which was not your own and which you claimed was under the GFDL ; the GFDL implies a set of precise obligations which do not fit in "whatever you want". I strongly suggest that you read relevant material and acertain that you have understood it before trying to further upload images which are not your own. Rama 21:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what does "do whatever you and others want with it" not cover?!Rex 21:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Start by reading the GFDL. I can't read it for you. Rama 21:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted a Public domain image because the uploader had the wrong tagg?! Was the effort of fixing the license really that much harder than deleting it?Rex 22:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was not Public Domain. Rama 23:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then please enlighten me about the status of this image, whose "owners" allow it to be used by everyone.Rex 23:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have not made myself clear : I do not know. Noone can know from what you provided. You must provide proper licencing when you upload images, something which states clearly which image is given under which licence. Rama 23:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You do not know, but you delete nevertheless. I provide an Email sent to me by the "owners" how on earth does that not suffice?! Rex 23:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to know for the image to remain. Rama 23:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of answer is that?Rex 10:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read the bleeding documentation on copyrights ! Rama 11:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is bloody ridiculous.Rex 12:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Desert-Eagle-compensation-phallique-p1030142.jpg

I'd have to say that this isn't exactly an NPOV file name. tisk tisk tisk. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware?

Are you aware of what's going on at your userpage and subpage? Is that you? -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 15:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was not aware of this, and this is not my deed. Thank you or pointing me, I think I will semi-protect these pages to save some silly burden to fellow admins. Cheers ! Rama 16:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject France

Hello! We are a group of editors working to improve the quality of France related articles. You look like someone who might be interested in joining us in the France WikiProject and so I thought I'd drop you a line and invite you! We'd love to have you in our project :-) STTW (talk) 21:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion please...

Greetings,

I'd like to ask for your opinion. A bunch of opinions actually, if you don't mind.

You have been an administrator for some time. In your opinion how long should an administrator wait between the application of a speedy deletion tag and the consummation of the deletion nomination?
If they see that the creator placed a hangon tag, but they don't see the accompanying justification in the talk page, how long should they allow.
WP:CSD and WP:CFD recommend that those placing tags should allow a kind of grace period, to allow for people, like myself, who start articles in stages, to bring the article to some kind of meaningful state before they apply the tag. I know there are a lot of experienced wikipedians who routinely ignore these recommendations. I assumed that there was a similar recommendation for a grace period for {{prod}} -- but it turns out there isn't. You don't happen to know whether this was an oversight, or a conscious design decision?
I know there are certain kinds of material, like scurrilious slander, that anyone is encouraged to delete on sight. Similarly, I am ready to believe there are certain kinds of article where an administrator is authorized to use their judgement and skip the step of applying a speedy, adf or prod tag. But, normally, shouldn't they go through the step of applying a speedy or prod tag, and, in the interests of openness and accountability, let a second administrator consummate the deletion?
- I came across a reference to a Guantanamo captive who reported working for 6 months for an American intelligence officer named "Mr. Mark". I thought I remembered another Guantamao captive describing being captured when they were asked to translate between two militia leaders and an important American named Mark. So I started an article, which was promptly deleted: Talk:Codename "Mark" - a CIA agent in Afghanistan in 2001. When I found I couldn't save my second draft I save it in my user space User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/codename Mark.
- So, do you think this deserved a very speedy deletion?

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 00:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the SD tag is valid, there is no need to wait ; else, the tag should be suppressed and a AfD page should be set up.
I assume it would be nice to ask something on the user's talk page ; I'd assume that someone who can deal with templates like a hangon tag is not a naive newcomer who has no idea of the project.
I think that suppression of an article has little to do with the content, but more with the subject. A very torough article about me, well written and sourced, is Speedy-deletion meat, while a crappy article about a minister of Queen Elisabeth I is just a featured article in gestation.
Perhaps ; on the other hand, if they have a doubt, maybe the AfD would be in order ; with this theory, admins would basically never put SD tags.
- I don't know whether this Mark person deserve his own article ; as you say it, it strikes me as belonging to a larger article, but I could me wrong.

Sorry for not providing an ultimate answer. Cheers ! Rama 15:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

The admin who consummated the speedy deletion, in spite of the {{hangon}} has apologized.

I am more disturbed by the actions of the admin who deleted the "Mark" article, within minutes of its creation -- without going through the steps of placing a speedy tag.

In general, I think that in order for openness. transparency and accountability, administrators should only skip the step of having two sets of eyes look at an article in serious cases. This administrator's suspicion of speculation and original research, within minutes of the article's creation, was, not only in violation of the guidelines at WP:CSD, but seriously degrades the trust we all need to be feeling for one another here on the wikipedia.
This particular administrator left an ugly comment on my talk page, which could be interpreted as a threat.
You and I met when User:Paradigmbuf (who has, since then, been permanently blocked, with all her sockpuppets.) accused us of being sockpuppets of one another, when we had problems with her attempts to turn the Paul Bremer article into a hagiography. I am afraid that, since then, I have come across other patriotic Americans, who are so patriotic that their patriotism has crossed the line into POV pushing.
Some of them seem unaware of their lapse. Others seem aware, and calculating. A half-dozen of my most persistent critics resort to abusing wikipedia tags, and making out-of-policy {{afd}} nominations. All of the half dozen of the most persistent critics of my work, who were prepared to abuse the wikipedia's maintenance tags, for pushing their POV, were later exposed to be individuals hiding behinds sockpuppets -- with the exception of my most persistent critic. I suspect him of being a sockpuppet, but the only evidence I have of this is that he burst, full-blown, onto the wikipedia, and immediately started engaging in deceitful POV pushing, and quoting (and misquoting) the wikipedia's policies and procedures. The particular identity he used to harass my work has piped down over the last few months. This could mean he has grown tired of the wikipedia, or it could mean he is focussing his attention on other sockpuppets of his. I can't exaggerate his malice. I wish I had known then how to submit an RfC, when he was in the middle of his abuse.
Well, this particular administrator, too, expressed views that, it seemed to me, suggested she shared the idea with Paradigmbuf, and these other deceitful sockpuppet users, that patriotic Americans could and should prevent the wikipedia from carrying articles, which, in their opinion, showed the USA in a bad light. I first encountered her during the first four {{afd}} discussions I participated in, when four of the articles I had started about Guantanamo detainees, one day, were all nominated for deletion shortly after their creation. During one of those discussions she wrote something that shocked me. Frankly, it STILL shocks me. Paraphrasing from memory, she said the wikipedia shouldn't have ANY articles about Guantanamo detainees, because those articles would just present opportunities for "America-bashing". I asked her what I thought were civil questions, to get her to clarify whether she meant what she wrote the way it appeared its surface meaning appeared to me.
I replied that I wasn't aware of any topic that couldn't be written about, from a neutral point of view, provided the authors were careful, and cited verifiable, reliable sources. I think my reply was civil and reasonable, and that she should have felt an obligation to clarify her position and reply to my point.
- She didn't write: "You have mis-understood me, or mischaracterized me, that is not what I meant at all."
- She didn't write: "Sorry, I was rushing, and wrote something I didn't mean."
- She didn't write: "You have got that half-right, I will be vigilant that articles that I think reflect badly on the USA, are rigously written, and I won't allow them to contain controversial quotations or paraphrasing that can't be backed up by an authoritative, verifiable source."
- She didn't reply at all.
What she did do was nominate ANOTHER Guantanamo related article for deletion, with a nomination that, in retrospect, I believe sailed far too close to violating WP:NPA: "A list of nn people with a bunch of red links just begging to be created. POV anti-Americanism, WP:POINT created because individual people whose articles already created have been listed for AfD."
As recently as four months ago this particular administrator placed a delete opinion in an {{afd}} discussion, with the justification not notable on his own. Since they previously went on record with the opinion that none of the Guantanamo captives was notable enough to merit an article of their own I have a bit of a problem with this opinion. It strikes me as disingeneous. I have had wikipedia contributors address notes to the closing administrators of {{afd}}s, explaining why they think the closing administrator should discount opinions placed in the fora. What do you think of this practice? If she states this opinion again, in another {{afd}}, do you think it would be appropriate for me to reply to their afd comment asking if they still felt no Guantanamo detainee merited any coverage on the wikipedia? Do you think it would be appropriate for me to address a comment to the closing administrator?
I was going to ask you about requesting an Administrator review. But, that process seems to have lapsed. I recently re-read the section in the wiki guidelines about "forgive and forget". I considered drafting a note offering an olive branch. But, then I came across her September 28th comment, and I re-read her December 2005 threat.
I have created hundreds of articles related to the Guantanamo detainees, and I don't believe there is a single one that could fairly be described as "America-bashing". I have met a number of administrators who are thoughtful, and tactful. But there are others who are rude, inconsiderate, show bad judgement and won't acknowledge making mistakes, and a few who, it seems, will bend the wikipedia's rules in order to push their POV. I really think it is important for all wikipedia contributors to be able to be humble enough to admit when they made a mistake. And I think it is particularly important for those who have been trusted with administrator powers. Maybe it is too much to expect her to own up, and acknowledge that the articles I started weren't simply "POV America-bashing". But, if our situations were reversed, I'd own up and admit I made a mistake.

I hope you don't mind me going on at such length.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 23:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Vendyl_jones_200x600.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Vendyl_jones_200x600.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image for Lateral coital position

I notice you've been doing diagrams for sexual positions. I just created an article for Masters and Johnson's lateral coital position. I did a quick diagram in OmniGraffle, but it would likely benefit from something a bit more along the lines of the others you've done. Feel free to replace it should you so desire. -- cmh^TC 20:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a batch of overdue drawings that I plan to do, I'll add this one to the list. I have already bought new sketchbooks. Cheers ! Rama 08:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thankies!!

Just a quick note to say cheers for obliging the rather embarrasing request. A couple of previous art-studenty friends needed pose diagrams for their sketches but were too queasy to sift through the porn - so I thought to ask you instead!! Thanks again, I hope they prove useful diagrams. Lady BlahDeBlah 00:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC) (couldn't find original query...)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Logo-armee-fracaise.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Logo-armee-fracaise.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 04:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Logo marine.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Logo marine.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 06:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Komšiluk

I've nominated Komšiluk, an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Komšiluk satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Komšiluk and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Komšiluk during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Duja► 10:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey Invitation

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 22:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)^{talk to me}[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Chretien2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Chretien2.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject France

Hi Rama! I have announced your artcile created French frigate Muiron on the Wikipedia:WikiProject France/New article announcements, so that other users interested in France-related topics can help expanding the article. Happy editing, STTW (talk) 19:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mechanical Pencil

Nice job cleaning up the page. :)
--Knulclunk 17:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name

Well you say its none of those but is it reffering to... this? -- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 03:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indirectly, yes. Rama 11:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

De Gaulle's pictures

I see you deleted de Gaulle's portrait standing on top of the de Gaulle article because (I quote) it is "uninteresting". I'm afraid you are abusing your admin powers here. It is not yours to decide which picture is interesting, and which is not. It should be decided by consensus of the community. I have restored this picture and I will file a formal complaint if you abuse your powers again. They were given to you to enforce Wikipedia policies, not to act as you please.

I see you also deleted the Casablanca Conference picture on the ground that (I quote again) this is excessive fair use, there are other free pictures that can be used. Well, actually no, after checking there is no other picture that show de Gaulle, Churchill, and Roosevelt on the same picture. So you deleted an important picture which showed the three allied western nations. I cannot restore this picture because I wasn't the person who uploaded it originally, so I don't have the references of this picture. Please undo your delete or I will have to contact other admins which I hope won't come to this. Godefroy 17:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that such a trivial image cannot fulfil the requirements for fair use.

Similar images to the Casablanca are available from public domain sources like Why We Fight. As you would know if you had cared to give a trivial glance at the image that I have provided as a Free alternative. Rama 17:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know

On 16 March, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article French destroyer La Combattante, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 00:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! there's quite a lot of work to do on these subjects, and instead of trying to understand what happen, people have too much of a tendency of exclusively engaging in political debates (not that's it's not important, but it's difficult to make oneself a clear idea without a full picture of the story - and yet, nobody can claim to have such a full picture...) Cheers! Tazmaniacs

Having created the Category:Italian left-wing extra-parliamentary groups, I removed however "Terrorism" cat for the PAC, as they claimed responsibility for four assassinations, but have not engaged in bombings AFAIK. Terrorism was defined by Raymond Aron as follow: "Une action violente est dénommée terroriste lorsque ses effets psychologiques sont hors de proportion avec ses résultats purement physiques." On pourrait discuter de cette définition, mais globalement elle semble rester à peu près correcte. Ciao! Tazmaniacs

You would probably be sad to see that. But then, clearly Wikipedia is useful (and obnoxious) for people on all... sides. Tazmaniacs

Image:Caducea.png

Greetings Rama. Would you mind taking a look at image:Caducea.png and adding a little information about its source? Happy editing. Valentinian ^{T / C} 12:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strasbourg

Jette un coup d'oeil à l'historique de cette page. Il y a de quoi devenir fou avec cet utilisateur Rt...chose qui, depuis des mois, ne fait que reverter aveuglément à des versions antérieures (effaçant notamment ta contribution), en toute impunité (aucun admin n'a jamais voulu enregistrer ma plainte). RCS 08:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antoine Béthouart

Hello Rama,

I would like to ask you to reconsider your move of the Émile Béthouart article to the name Antoine Béthouart.

I realize that both given names are part of his entire name. However, you should consider the following -

1. There are already articles titled Émile Béthouart in three other languages on Wikipedia. As it is, the English language article is the newest and now bears a different name.

2. The bridge named for Béthouart in Innsbruck is the Émile-Béthouart-Steg, an indication that he was officially, at least, known as "Émile Béthouart".

3. Googling the two names (not scientific, I know) produces over 100 hits for "Émile-Béthouart" and about 50 for "Antoine Béthouart".

Your consideration of this request would be appreciated.

Cheers

W. B. Wilson 14:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am uncertain on this issue: you have numerous hits of both "Émile Béthouart" and "Antoine Béthouart", but you'll notice that the the first hits on"Émile Béthouart" are Wikipedia articles and USyan sites, while "Antoine Béthouart" returns the official site of the Ordre de la Libération. On the site of the Sénat, he is known as Antoine as well [1]. Rama 14:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Granted. It is odd however that a bridge named for him, with French officials present at the ceremony, uses Émile vice Antoine in the name. As well, the hits on the other Wikipedia sites are hardly American usages. It -is- unfortunate that we now have a different article name than three other Wikis for a biographical entry. It would probably be best if all four Wikis used his full name, but getting the others to change as well would likely not be easy. W. B. Wilson 19:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to the full name is a good idea: it allows us to escape the problem even if we can't solve it :) Rama 19:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Salut Rama

J'ai bloqué indéfiniment le compte "Www.inquisition.ca" sur fr, et le type vient réclamer en me disant qu'il contribue sans problème ici. Effectivement!! Il est passé à travers les mailles du filet ou quoi? Moi, j'ai vu un nom qui contenait un lien vers site, j'ai bloqué à vue, mais bon. Dis moi quoi :-) Bradipus 22:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah flûte, ne voyant pas de réaction je te croyais en congé et j'étais en train de faire un message à un autre admin, mais je vois que tu l'as bloqué en fait. Bonne continuation. Bradipus 08:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Désolé, j'étais un peu à la bourre, d'où mon laconisme. Par ailleurs, le canal IRC des admins de en: a été mis en mode privé, je me suis fait faire les autorisations pour y aller. J'ai pu alors m'y connecter, taper un brin de conversation amicale avec des gens aimables, leur donner un petit coup de main pour des questions qu'ils avaient à propos de Commons, avoir un avis sur ton loustic et le bloquer avec la conscience tranquille que donne l'assurance de la collégialité, et la satisfaction de ne pas avoir perdu mon temps de bénévolat à des conneries.

Bon retour sur fr: ! :> Rama 17:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erreur

File:Saint-Pierre-Le-Vieux-IMG 4136.jpg

C'est Saint-Thomas, pas Saint-Pierre-le-Vieux !

RCS 06:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Il est prévenu

[2]. RCS 17:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IRC cloak request

I am rama on freenode and I would like the cloak wikimedia/rama. Thanks. --Rama 16:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images

I'm just using what I was told to use. So please stop deleting my images, it is just annoying (or just explain me what I should use instead of deleting pigheadedly).Max Thayer 13:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You do not understand what you are told to do, and you are doing things which are incorrect, you are telling things which are blatantly wrong, and you are putting Wikipedia in illegal situations. Please stop until you understand what you are doing or I'll have you blocked. Rama 13:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man, I am acting in good faith. I did exactly what I had been told to do, as I had asked for some informations about fair use rationales. The rationale I used was exactly the same I had been given as an example. I have been talking about the image status for weeks with other users in order to know what to do. What is your reason for using that arrogant and hostile tone with me ? I notice that I'm asking for info, which you just refuse to give. The rationale for tv-screenshot exists : is there any single reason it shouldn't be used ? Max Thayer 18:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know that you are acting in good faith. You are doing something idiotic and dangerous and illegal. So either you stop yourself, or I'll have you stop. Good faith is irrelevant.

Just read the bleeding rationales instead of copy-pasting blindly. Fair use is not a blank check that anything can be used. Images of people cannot be claimed as "fair use" when we have prefectly Free atlernatives ; did you even bother to check whether we had photos about Rocard, for instance ? You did not, and you claimed that it was impossible for us to have one, when in fact we do. You are engaging in a legally binding statement when you write these fair use rationals, so at leats try to understand what you are doing ! Rama 18:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, man, just use another tone with me. I am perfectly willing to check if images of Rocard are free to use, just tell me to check and I'll do so in the future. Or, should I say, I'd do that if behaviour like yours wasn't likely to kill all my interest in wikipedia. Why did you have to destroy all the images while other users -whom I had asked before - told me that they were ok ? You could at least have had the decency to tell me about it politely before acting like that. This would have been a better way of starting whatever exchange you wanted to have with me. Anyway, I'm afraid I'm just not interested in trying to understand the way you reason. Life is too short and wikipedia users are too annoying.Max Thayer 19:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your images were not OK. Your images were illegal, at best extremely dubious. You have not understood what you were told, and you have not read the documentation. I can't read it for you. Rama 19:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Love your drawing

Hey I love your drawing, especially the charcoal(?)[Just read your front page and realised it was something else] ones. Just thought I'd let you know :/ Wolfmankurd 20:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas Sarkozy

Hi, I am a bit puzzled by your edit summary for this edit. Did you intend to put or to remove the FBI comparison? -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove it. It seems that we have the same idea, but that I am more clumsy. Rama 11:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canon EF-24 lens article

I have speedy deleted this page. It needed more context to advise the reader as to what it was about. Capitalistroadster 07:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have done the same thing for the 28mm. It needed some other text about the particular series of lenses to provide context. Capitalistroadster 07:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then why don't you write it or request it be written ? Your deletion has broken access to the specific articles via the "Canon lenses" template (Template:Canon EF lenses). And I see no point in having red links to articles which are forbidden from existing. Rama 07:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Camera template

There's an {{Infobox camera}}, which might do the trick. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 16:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Éric Besson

I am really shocked that someone who is a wikipedia administrator, due to political passion, illustrates an article of wikipedia in a way which amounts to vandalism. Hektor 08:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What ? Rama 08:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are going to tell me that illustrating Éric Besson with a picture of Judas is normal behaviour ? Hektor 09:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it was a mistake. I happened to be reviewing both articles at the same time, I was working on the photograph of Besson, and I copy-pasted something incorrect.

I am grateful that you corrected this. I commend you for your attention, but not for your jumping at my throat. Rama 09:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I remember being blocked recently by someone who talked to me about zero tolerance. Let us say that it was an unfortunate coincidence that you were reviewing Judas and creating Éric Besson at the same time. Hektor 09:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Were you ? I see nothing of the sort in your log. You appear to be a model user.

Yes, well, mistakes happen. And I am all the most grateful that people like you are there to review things. Thank you again and good continuation ! Rama 09:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was on Commons. Hektor 10:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons is particular: uploading something on it is an automatic legally binding statement ("this is Free material"). On Wikipedia, saving your work has the same legally binding nature, but does not suggest that any guarantee of exactitude is given (the reverse is stressed, as a matter of fact).

Hence my error had no serious consequence, while uploading unfree works on Commons could have serious legal consequences. Also, the reason why we block easily on Commons is not to apply a form of punishment, but to prevent further serious mistakes from occurring. When a user has understood the matter, it is typically easy for him to be unblocked, as you might know. Rama 17:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Môquet

Salut, pourquoi as-tu supprimé La Lettre dans l'article Môquet ? Je pense que ton abréviation doit signifier violation de copyright mais... c'est pas un peu du patrimoine national ? Elle sera lue en début d'année à tous les lycéens apparemment et je l'ai vue sur plusieurs sites donc où est le problème ? S'il y a un site où elle a le droit d'être c'est bien Wikipedia. S'il y a vraiment un problème quant à la diffusion de cette lettre pourquoi ne pas plutôt attendre qu'on nous le dise plutôt que de censurer directement ???? J'ai trouvé ça violent ! D'autant plus que ne connaissant pas l'édition sous Wiki j'ai mis du temps à trouver comment on faisait et toi en 3 secondes sans plus d'explications une petite touche delete et c'est parti. Ça donne bien envie de participer à un projet encyclopédique merci ! En tout cas ça m'étonnerait énormément que quelqu'un vienne dire : enlevez cette lettre s'il vous plaît, elle m'appartient, je veux pouvoir toucher de l'argent grâce aux pubs du site où je la mets...

Cette lettre n'est pas dans le domaine public, son auteur étant mort il y a moins de 70 ans. Je ne compte même pas les prolongations pour années de guerre (+8 ans), ni le bonus de trente ans pour mort pour la France, dont on peut raisonnablement arguer qu'il est applicable. En conséquence, la mise de cette lettre sur un site comme Wikipédia est illégale. Reviens en 2049. Rama 20:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merci pour ta réponse et ces explications. Mais ne crois-tu pas que le statut de cette lettre est particulier et qu'il est assez bête d'appliquer toujours bêtement des règles ? Il faut être plus intelligent que ça. PERSONNE ne viendra réclamer à ce que cette lettre soit enlevée de Wikipedia et dans la faible éventualité où ça serait fait, avec une bonne raison exprimée, et bien à ce moment-là il serait toujours temps de l'enlever, mais cette fois : en sachant pourquoi ! Il n'y a aucun enjeu financier autour de cette lettre et étant donné l'aspect symbolique qu'elle a pris (pas avec Sarko évidemment, bien avant...) tout le monde doit y avoir accès, je ne vois pas qui pourrait ne pas être d'accord avec ça. Pardon mais je ne vois aucune raison logique pour ton geste. Évidemment si tu n'es pas d'accord sur le fait qu'il ne faut pas bêtement suivre tous les règlements/législations mais parfois agir avec sa raison pour des cas particuliers il est impossible que nous dialoguons. J'espère que je n'ai pas affaire à un psychorigide et que tu ne vas pas m'envoyer bouler comme un petit con avide de rébellion. Qu'est-ce que Wikipedia, qui n'a aucun but lucratif, risque en attendant une demande de retirer ce genre de document plutôt qu'en censurant directement elle-même ? De plus, clique sur le lien vers la lettre, en bas de l'article wikipedia, puis sur le logo en dessous du fil RSS, tu arrives ici : http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/deed.fr, toi qui t'y connais tu sauras mieux que moi : est-ce que ça ne veut pas dire que ce que j'ai fait n'était pas illégal ?

Je crois ce qui est légal. Tu peux griller des feux rouges quand les flics ne regardent pas, ça n'en fait pas plus quelque chose de légal. D'autre part, ce que tu fais ici n'engage pas que toi, mais l'ensemble de Wikipédia.

De même, l'"aspect symbolique" que prendrait cette lettre parce qu'un nouveau président de la République décide de rassembler les valeurs de Droite et de Gauche en faisant chanter le Travail, la Famille et la Patrie par un stalinien à peine pubère est totalement hors sujet. Si Sarkozy a décidé d'enrichir la famille Môquet avec l'argent de la République en lui reversant des droits chaque année jusqu'en 2049, grand bien lui fasse.

Tu devrais te renseigner sur les licences et les status de Wikipédia. Rama 09:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

??? Alors là je suis épaté. Tu es sensé faire régner l'ordre ici alors commence par essayer de bien comprendre ce qu'on te dit et de ne pas faire d'amalgame. Non seulement tu fais un amalgame dans ce que je dis mais tu m'en reproches un ! Ta comparaison avec les feux rouges n'a rien de pertinent puisque d'1. griller un feu rouge met en danger la vie d'autrui, de 2. je n'ai jamais dit qu'il fallait aller à l'encontre de la loi dans ce cas mais plutôt attendre que quelqu'un se manifeste pour revendiquer ses droits plutôt que de le précéder en lésant tous les gens à qui cela pourrait profiter. J'ai bien parlé de cas particulier pour cette lettre. Ta comparaison avec les feux rouges te décrédibilise complètement ! Apparemment tu n'as pas compris ma parenthèse sur Sarko non plus : elle signifiait simplement que la lettre n'avait pas pris de l'intérêt spécialement depuis que Sarko en a parlé, mais qu'elle avait déjà de l'importance avant. Tes élucubrations politiques, elles, en revanche sont hors-sujet ! Et faire l'article anglais sur Môquet pour ensuite le traiter de "stalinien à peine pubère" c'est d'une finesse... ! T'aurais pu te dispenser de traduire l'article pour commencer si c'est ensuite pour ridiculiser la personne qu'il concerne, et te demander si oui ou non il avait suffisamment de poils quand il a été fusillé pour être dit pubère ! Pour finir tu n'as même pas réagi au point principal de mon message : je t'ai donné un lien vers une page dont je comprends que la lettre est libre de droits et j'attends que tu m'en détrompes. Cette lettre est libre de droits ! Elle est dans tous les journaux ! Alors pourquoi pas sur Wikipedia, en version originale puis traduite ? Par conséquent, j'attends toujours que tu expliques ton geste.

Cette lettre n'est pas libre, sauf mention spéciale des ayants droit, que je n'ai vu nulle part. Sa mise sur Wikipédia est illégale, et ton petit couplet sur "violons les lois jusqu'à ce qu'on nous rappelle à l'ordre" n'a pas court ici. La comparaison avec les feux rouges tient dans la mesure où ton tu exposes Wikipedia à un procès ; que tu le fasses par ignorance est excusable, mais que tu viennes militer pour que nous faisions fi des lois et du droit d'auteur en toute connaissance de cause, non.

En ce qui concerne ton site, il ne donne aucune référence qui permette de dire que la lettre est sous cette licence. C'est précisément le genre de choses qui ne doivent pas arriver sur Wikipédia. Les journaux, ce site, peuvent se mettre à la limite de la loi ou au-delà si ça leur chante ; Wikipédia, non.

En ce qui concerne "stalinien à peine pubère", dans la mesure où je parle d'un gamin de 17 ans inscrit aux jeunesses communistes en 1939, je ne vois pas ce que ça a de diffamatoire. Tu auras pris bonne note du fait que l'article ne contient pas ces termes, et que je suis capable de faire abstraction de mes sentiments personnels lorsque j'écris pour l'encyclopédie ; cela ne m'interdit pas de nourrir les sentiments qui me chantent, et je dis ce que je veux sur ma page de discussion dans la limite des lois. Rama 11:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tu aurais d'abord vérifié la diffusion de la lettre avant de supprimer ce que j'avais fait sur l'article je suis sûr que tu aurais réfléchi à deux fois avant de le faire, mais maintenant que tu as fait ce que tu as fait tu ne cherches qu'à défendre ton geste, en dépit de tout bon sens. Que tout le monde reprenne cette lettre impunément, médias français comme anglophones, ne te met pas la puce à l'oreille comme quoi elle est libre de droits ou même que les ayants droit (qui ne peuvent qu'être assez éloignés de Guy puisque ni lui ni son frère n'ont eu de descendance), s'en foutent et ne sont pas assez malseins pour vouloir en tirer tout l'argent possible. Non, toi, maintenant, il te faut une lettre portant sceau comme quoi elle l'est, autrement, tu ne reviendras pas sur ton geste. Et bien je vais m'amuser à mon tour à supprimer tout ce qui est suspicieux vis-à-vis des droits sur Wikipedia, avec cette adresse ip ou une autre, sous ton étendard, ça va être vraiment hilarant !! Tu m'as convaincu : je décide de m'enfoncer dans la connerie avec toi ! Et pour ton "stalinien à peine pubère", je n'ai jamais dit que c'était blasphématoire, oh non non certes pas, tu sais éviter tous ces pièges, tu l'as bien montré, ce n'est pas blasphématoire, c'est juste très con et méprisant. On parle de quelqu'un qui a donné sa vie pour ses idées, est connu pour ses adieux touchants à sa famille, et toi tu parles de son potentiel manque de poils lors de sa mort et le résume par deux qualificatifs voulus dégradants. Non évidemment, ça n'a rien de blasphématoire et tu peux dire ça sur ta page de discussion, ça nous aide juste à mieux comprendre à qui on a affaire et à éviter le personnage par la suite. Ciao.

Je te conseille d'éviter aussi Wikipédia, à quoi tu n'as visiblement rien compris. Rama 12:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Warrior-UN.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Warrior-UN.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Iraq_RPG1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Iraq_RPG1.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

admin ?

Et alors Rama, ton statut d'admin ne te donne aucun statut supplémentaire particulier.
Finalement, Alvaro avait raison.
Alithien sur wp:en ou ceedjee sur wp:fr et commons.

Si, mon statut d'admin me donne le statut d'admin. Réfléchis un peu.

Par contre il ne me donne pas d'autorité particulière. Toutefois, Wikipédia n'est pas un forum à trolls. Merci donc de t'abstenir de militer pour la présence de commentaires non constructifs sur les pages de discussion. Rama 06:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sources

Non. Le nom ne suffit pas comme source.
Merci de ne pas entamer de guerre d'éditions
Une source, c'est indiquer d'où on tient une information.
Au plaisir de ne plus te croiser maintenant. Alithien 02:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bon attends ; nous avons un article sur la frégate Chevalier Paul, et il faut que je fournisse une source dans l'article du bonhomme pour prouver que le navire existe ? Je pense que tu devrais lire un peu les guides d'édition avant d'inventer des règles. Rama 06:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Caducea.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Caducea.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 12:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:Eufor handover.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Eufor handover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:Gnuwin-logo.png

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Gnuwin-logo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:Jaureguiberry torpedoes.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Jaureguiberry torpedoes.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:Nemo-shah.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Nemo-shah.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:Robin Hood1.png

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Robin Hood1.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:Logo-armee-de-lair.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Logo-armee-de-lair.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:Logo-armee-de-lair.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Logo-armee-de-lair.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:SJ umbrella bath.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:SJ umbrella bath.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:SJ shadows.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:SJ shadows.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:SJ raining.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:SJ raining.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:SJ rails.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:SJ rails.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]