User talk:Rama/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Minaret controversy in Switzerland

I disagree with your reasoning behind the undo of my edit to the above page, setting aside whether or not the blog is authoritative, it was in the further reading section as a pointer for the reader who may want further information. As it is clearly on topic I fail to see what harm it does ? The removal of the link could to some appear as censorship. As I have no wish to pick a fight with an admin, I am going to leave it at that, however I would like you to reconsider reinstating it.

Codf1977 (talk) 11:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, not wishing to upset an admin, however, I do think you should have had the decency to at least acknowledge my message.Codf1977 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC).

You do not have to be particularly deferent because I have the sysop status, this gives me no particular status of authority.

I did not acknowledge because the only thing that I could answer is a triviality: removing material "could to some appear as censorship", just like adding material "could to some appear as propaganda". From that point, one has to either renounce doing anything ever, or admit that all coins have two sides and do for the best. Rama (talk) 21:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The question was "What harm does it do having it there ? Codf1977 (talk) 09:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It does the harm of passing Wikipedia as a low-quality medium written by people who cannot tell a personal blog from an authoritative source. Rama (talk) 09:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It was in the further reading section, not passing it self off as anything - it was saying to the reader of the artical "if you want more information you may want to look here". I disagree with your premis that a personal blog can not be an authoritative source. Did you read the artical before you deleted the link or did you just do it because the URL had blog in it ? Codf1977 (talk) 10:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Whether in "further reading" or elsewhere changes nothing the the problem

I am not saying that a personal blog cannot be authoritative (counter-example: [1]). I am saying that, as far as I can see, this particular blog in only a personal blog. Rama (talk) 10:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I still don't understand you point - what you mean by "only a personal blog" - and what is the problem with that ? Also can you answer the other question I asked - Namily did you read the artical before you deleted the link or did you just do it because the URL had blog in it ? Codf1977 (talk) 10:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I did read the article.

I mean "only a personal blog" to be an attempt at politely say that this is a blog by some random chap without any particular education or authority to give his statements any importance. I think that advertising this sort of blogs gives the impression that Wikipedia editors are incapable of telling relevant and authoritative commentators from armchair philosophers, which is marginally harmful for the project. Rama (talk) 13:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

this is a blog by some random chap without any particular education or authority you mean other than a degree in politics - for example one other link on the page is to a artical written by a Swiss national who currently works in New York who if you look up lists his practice areas as competition law, as well as banking and financial law. How is that any diffrent ? Codf1977 (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I am intrigued as to the answer to this question? Codf1977 (talk) 11:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, but you keep asking questions to which there are only obvious answers. So, if I absolutely have to spell it:

1) I did not read the other link to which you refer. I did not propose it, and I am not interested in it.

2) Assuming your characterisation of this second link is accurate, there is little difference between your anecdotical blog and this anecdotical blog; this would entail that this second anecdotical blog should be removed too, not that anecdotical blogs are becomming a must. Rama (talk) 12:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for File:Chicago Spire.jpg

An editor has asked for a deletion review of File:Chicago Spire.jpg. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. DR04 (talk) 01:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

you are being discussed

at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Uninvolved_Admin_Requested:_User:Damiens.rf_multiple_JPG_deletions_and_related_matters Mercy11 (talk) 21:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

This is very precisely the reason why I prefer summarly deleting bogus-fair-use images -- as I am entitled to do per policy -- rather than go through the deletion request. Because the deletion request is no a place where discussion on how work should be done happens, but where the work is prevented from being done. Where it is all too easy to be overwhelmed by cluelessness, and where things are "voted" into Fair Use in complete disregard for the relevant policies. And all I get for commenting on such a deletion request is being singled out as, Goodness, the one who disagrees with the rest.

Wikipedia was not meant as a democracy, but this is not even that, it's the rule of the mob. Rama (talk) 22:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

No, you are not permitted to summarily delete files based on your own novel interpretation of the NFCC criteria. Please follow the procedures that are given, namely tagging with RFU for two days and giving time for discussion.

On an entirely unrelated note, did you know there is a User:RAMA who seemingly came in by way of SUL... I added a "{{distinguish}}" tag to their user talk page. –xeno^talk 14:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that you re-read the first 40 words of Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion.

Thank you for the User:RAMA thing. I seem to be blessed with a username even more common that what could be expected from the "-rama" suffix and the different villages and other things that bear the name. Rama (talk) 13:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

RQ-170 Sentinel

Hello Rama, just wanted to alert you to this dicussion Talk:RQ-170_Sentinel#Image. Kudos for taking the initiative on this! Joshdboz (talk) 15:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Building consensus on copyright issue

You were involved in a discussion regarding the use of copyrighted architectural designs on Wikipedia pages and I'm trying to find community consensus on a gray area. If you can, please let me know at what point you feel these images should be replaced here. Thank you so much! DR04 (talk) 19:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Hippalectryon

On December 14, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hippalectryon, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 11:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Pink Floyd images

Why were this and this deleted? Parrot of Doom 19:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

These images can be replaced. Rama (talk) 09:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

By what? Parrot of Doom 11:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

By other images, obviously. Rama (talk) 11:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Really, so there's another image of all five members of Pink Floyd in 1968, with a free licence, on Wikipedia? Or there's another image of Syd Barrett, overweight, in the studio in 1975 - anywhere? I'd be grateful if you could show me where. Parrot of Doom 11:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

::Only if you have a time machine. There are no free images that would replace the band shot, and one cannot be made now as two of the people in the shot are dead. Syd Barratt I'm not so sure about. Yes, it was taken at a particular moment in time (so you would need that time machine), but there may be free images of Syd Barratt taken at around that time (1975) that would show his drastically altered appearance, which is the significance of the image. However, if these do not exist, then there is no chance of making one now as he is dead.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The question is not whether the image is replaced, but whether it can be replaced. You are using random images for decorative purposes; Fair Use is for critical discussion of specific media that are the subject of the article, not for suplementing a lack of Free media by snatching random, copyrighted media without asking. See Wikipedia:Non-free content‎ and my explanations at User:Rama/Fair use. Rama (talk) 12:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

As for making images of dead people, painting and drawing have been used for centuries with some success. Simply because one person is not willing or capable of creating an image does not mean that it is impossible to create the image in question. Rama (talk) 12:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Random images? Nonsense. The Pink Floyd group image best illustrates the two phases of the group. There isn't one that could do it better. The Syd Barrett image, if you'd read anything of the history of Wish You Were Here you'd understand its significance. I suggest that before you arbitrarily delete images that you think shouldn't be there, you ask first why they exist. Oh and feel free to create your own images, but if you're talking about childish rubbish like the Gerald Scarfe portrait, you may as well not bother. Parrot of Doom 14:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you tell me who took these photographs, with what equipment, where they are published first, and quote examples of the critical reception? If you cannot, you are not using Fair use on an irreplaceable image, but simply taking something that you like, for convenience. Which is not what Fair Use is about. Rama (talk) 14:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you point to the place in the Fair Use policy where it says all that? If you can't, could you stop making it up please. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

"Images with iconic status or historical importance: As subjects of commentary.". Listen, it's just trivial to look up, could you take the care of actually reading these policies before arguing over them? Rama (talk) 14:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I can, actually, and I've more than demonstrated an adequate rationale on each image description. If you don't like it, or don't think that there is enough information, then mention it on the primary article talk page. Don't just delete things based upon your own interpretation of rules which are clearly open to debate - some might consider it an abuse of power. Parrot of Doom 14:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The article says nothing of these images. They are not the subject of the article, or even of portions of it, but are used "only to visually identify elements in the article", which "should be used as sparingly as possible. Consider restricting such uses to major characters and elements or those that cannot be described easily in text, as agreed to by editor consensus.". (I quote the policy) Rama (talk) 14:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

(indent) Obviously you're not reading the same articles as I am. I suggest you make a cup of tea and read Pink Floyd, and then Wish You Were Here (Pink Floyd album), and then try telling me that the images serve no useful purpose. Parrot of Doom 14:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Once again, "serve no useful purpose" does not mean "look nice in the article", but "are iconic and subject to critical commentary". A caption that ready "Syd Barrett, visiting Abbey Road Studios in July 1975" is not a critical commentary. Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima is. Note the difference. Rama (talk) 14:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you do as I've already typed. You clearly don't have a clue about the history of the articles these images are used in. Next you'll be deleting all album cover articles, and replacing them with childish drawings. Give it a go, after all, those images are replaceable.... Parrot of Doom 14:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

What does the history of the article have to do with anything? I see no critical commentary of these images in either of the articles. Please do point me to the relevant paragraph if I have missed it. Rama (talk) 14:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

And I see nothing at WP:NFCC that states that critical commentary of an image is required, only that its presence significantly increases readers understanding of the subject; which both images quite clearly do. I've explained their rationale. I'll waste no more time in this pointless discussion. Parrot of Doom 16:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I have quoted this right above, "Images with iconic status or historical importance: As subjects of commentary." The Fair use policy does not read "anything goes". Rama (talk) 16:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Btw Parrot, the images haven't been deleted yet (although they may have been removed from the article). As there is a dispute over these images, they should go through a deletion discussion.Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

They were deleted, albeit out-of-process. I restored them. –xeno^talk 14:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I wondered if that was what happened. Is there scope for a proper deletion discussion - my own feeling is that the first FUR is fine and the second probably so, given that it is a picture of a precise moment in time, but I appreciate that the views of others do vary. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course. Anyone is free to tag with {{subst:rfu}}, {{subst:dfu}}, or bring them to WP:FFD. My restoration was not meant to preclude any of those actions and was without prejudice to the final decision of those procedures, but simply to revert what was an inappropriate and out-of-process summary deletion. –xeno^talk 14:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Please stop deleting files out of-process

I have reverted some, but not all, of your most recent deletions. They were all out-of-process. Please observe the proper procedure outlined at WP:CSD#F7; namely, tag the files first with {{subst:dfu}} or {{subst:rfu}} and wait the requisite period of time before deleting the files. Summary deletion of files is unacceptable - the checks and balances in place exist for good reason. –xeno^talk 19:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Please read the first paragraph of WP:CSD and refrain, in the future, from WP:WHEEL. Rama (talk) 09:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I have. I draw your attention to, in particular, the last sentence: "They cover only the cases specified in the rules below." The rules below specify a process. You are bypassing the process and summarily deleting files out-of-process. This is not acceptable and you've been previously told this. I'm afraid the next step if this behaviour continues unabated will be an RFC/U to gather community opinions as to the best course of action.

Just FYI, while it is somewhat of a murky area, it is typically understood that a wheel war begins on the 3rd action, not the 2nd. –xeno^talk 13:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

As it is written, I understand the process to be optional, as the first paragraph explicitely states "bypass deletion discussion and immediately delete Wikipedia pages or media". If that is not what is to be understood, I encourage you to propose a change in policy or formulation.

As for wheel warring, I care little for these lexicographic subtlelties. The core of the issue is that you have restored several images that, clearly, can easily be replaced with Free alternatives. I am not interested in discussing the letter of the rules with people who break its spirit. Rama (talk) 13:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone stepped forward to support your very peculiar interpretations of the CSD policy? Even other NFCC hard-liners have told you that you are wrong. The procedures are not optional, they are there for a reason. –xeno^talk 14:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Your Gerald Scarfe illustration

Hi. I've removed the illustration that you created and added to Gerald Scarfe, as it seems inappropriate to have a user-illustration depicting a living person, especially a cartoonist/illustrator who has a distinctive personal style. I don't know if there is a guideline that endorses either the addition or removal of user-created illustrations for biographies, but I'd be interested in discussing it further if you could start a thread in an appropriate location. Thanks.

(For reference, these are the files you added/replaced at that article: File:Gerald Scarfe.jpg, File:Gerald Scarfe-inked.jpg, File:Gerald Scarfe-2.jpg). -- Quiddity (talk) 21:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Since we currently do not have alternatives for these illustration, you are removing information from the article.

I do not see the connection between the subject being an artist himself and the portrait. The portrait illustrates the face of the artist, not his style. And we do not refrain from illustration photographers with photographies, do we? Rama (talk) 09:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The connection regarding Scarfe being an artist, is that he might have created a self-portrait at some point, which would not only depict his face, but also his drawing style.

Also, given that Scarfe is an artist, having an illustrated portrait might lead to the mistaken impression that your art is by Scarfe. (I was confused, and went to the image page to check whether it was an early example of his own art).

In fact he has made various self-portraits - see gerald_scarfe.jpg and front.jpg for example.

Secondly, all 3 of the images depicting Scarfe that you uploaded are fairly amateur (no offense intended, simply a subjective opinion). The man looks like this, and your illustrations bear only a passing resemblance to the man. If I were him, I'd be upset to be represented in an encyclopedia with such images.

I believe your images are essentially fan-art, but I could not find any guidelines/guidance on whether Wikipedia recommends for/against using such in articles. As I said, if you would like to bring the topic up for discussion in a more suitable location, I'd be interested in seeing other editor's input. Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're back at AN/I

Your attempt to re-tag the non free Chicago spire image has been the subject of discussion at WP:ANI. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Rama, please take a moment to step back and breath. You're just about to break 3RR on the image over the tag; obviously there is a lot of interest in the image so lets see how that plays out. A lot of other administrators are expressing the opinion that your understanding of the way the speedy deletion process works and how fair-use images are handled is a bit off from what others understand. Can you take a moment to look at that and see if you can agree that perhaps you misunderstood these points? Shell ^babelfish 14:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, the recurrent removal of this tag, backed with arguments that are material falsehoods , will precisely ensure that we shall never see "how that plays out". Rama (talk) 14:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

When I removed the image, the replacement you proposed at that time had just been deleted and two discussions were held less than a week ago on this very issue (along with a long thread on ANI). This is not a falsehood nor untrue in any way, this is a case where you strongly disagreed with the outcome. I understand and greatly appreciate the concern for maintaining Wikipedia as freely as possible, but I think in this case you may have started taking this a bit personally and its affecting your judgement. Slow down for a bit, read what other folks are saying and see if we can't find a way to resolve this that doesn't involve further edit warring. Shell ^babelfish 14:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I put another template for deletion when I saw that the silouhette images were accepted on Commons. From this instant, a Free replacement existed, which was the silouhette image. And from that point on, arguing that the potential image had been destroyed was a falsehood.

I am not saying that it is bad faith on your part, just that you are participating in a process that makes it impossible to implement the policy. In effect, the "processes" that I supposedly do not abide by are being hijacked by the very people who claim to defend them, as they prevent discussion on replaceability, in direct contradiction with both the spirit and letter of the Fair Use policy.

Really, sometimes I feel that we should just ditch it and replace it with "anything goes". Rama (talk) 14:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the silhouettes were kept does not mean they serve the same encyclopedic purpose. They are acceptable as height comparisons among buildings, but not for critical discussion of the architectural design of the subject. –xeno^talk 14:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

That's your opinion. Having an opinion like this does not authorise you to remove deletion templates from images. That is what the discussion is about, I though that you cared so much for it? Rama (talk) 14:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It's the opinion of everyone who laid eyes on the silhouette and commented. I removed your deletion template as disruptive forum shopping. –xeno^talk 14:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Thread at MCQ

You probably saw/will see this linked at ANI but just in case please be advised there is a thread that concerns you here. –xeno^talk 15:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI I initiated an RFC on the drawing/illustration concept here: Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 44#Does a drawing of a person, or the fact that one might be drawn, mean all non-free photos of people are thus replaceable?. Cheers, –xeno^talk 00:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you please use FFD?

Rama, as a fellow admin who sympathises with the effort of getting rid of bad NFC, and who has taken a lot of flak from people unhappy with such cleanup efforts myself, can I make a suggestion: when you tackle an image where you know in advance there will be significant disagreement, it is generally much less stressful for all concerned to take the case to FFD right away, rather than bother with di-rfu and friends. It's not an issue of whether queued speedy would formally be justifiable, but rather that FFD is a much more suitable place to accomodate the necessary debate than the image pages themselves, or (even worse) ANI. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not deleting images anymore for a number of reasons:

1. I used to delete images because I believed it to be in accordance with the policy and that it was quicker. Now,
   • I am obviously being watched closely by a number of people, most either of the "anything-goes-as-Fair-Use" or of the "check-and-balance" sort, and summarly deleting images is now longer than FFD
   • most important, I now have serious doubts that summarly deleting is withing the policy, or at least understood as such. I still do find it odd that we have "immediately delete without discussion" followed by "after 7 days" and "deletion review", but if somebody like User:Moonriddengirl tells me that I am the only one to understand things as I do, I do as she says. I generally expect discipline and recognition for superior insights from others because I expect them from myself.
2. to quote your terms, I "know in advance there will be significant disagreement" on every last single bloody image, however ridiculously out of line it might be. Because most people are clueless about the Fair Use policy, become utterly opposed to it when they are made aware, and stop at nothing to twist the rules as to void the policy of its meanings and turn it into "anything goes".

I'd like to salute the courage of the people out there who manage the oh-so-numerous bogus Fair Use claims. I had no idea that janitoring this would induce such downright hatred. Rama (talk) 17:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

What you consider "janitoring" is seen as oppressive and wrong by many. What you consider to be "hatred" is simply a disagreement - I doubt anyone hates you - I know I don't and appreciate the work you put into Wikipedia. Perhaps trying to connect with people would be more beneficial then making absolute statements (such as "the oh-so-numerous bogus Fair Use claims"). I disagree with you just as you disagree with me, but I don't call your interpretations bogus. Why not just argue your points as viewpoints instead of as absolutes? Through all this crap you probably have seen that these policies, interpretations, and laws are not as black and white as you originally wanted me to believe. DR04 (talk) 20:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

When an image has a replacement, a replacement is possible, period. If that's not absolute, then nothing is. Rama (talk) 23:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It's like I didn't even post anything on your page. I'm done here. DR04 (talk) 00:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I hope that "I am not deleting images any more" doesn't actually mean you won't delete any more images. There are gazillions of the damn things need deleting all the time. Even the dimmest critics couldn't object to you deleting to your hearts' content using CSDs F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F8, F9, F10 and F11. Could they? Surely it can only possibly be F6 and F7 that concern them? You're the ideal person to be cleaning out the leftovers from moves to Commons, assuming you're foolishkind enough to volunteer. You know that "public domain in the US" is not "public domain everywhere", you know what a disaster area FOP is, and you know what information Commons expects to have on files. You even have superpowers on Commons so you can see deleted files and speedily delete bad uploads without delay. So I hope that I'm misunderstanding you or that you'll reconsider if I am not! Best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I meant that I would not summarily delete images under F7 rather than go through the FFD process. That does not mean that I intend to delete any image at all or undertake FFD processes at all.

Readings of the policies and guidelines as "anything goes" are so popular that enforcing them attracts the ire of a mob and that potential enforcers are in perpetual awe (see for instance [2], or your own "assuming you're foolishkind enough to volunteer"). People will insist to use non-Free images even in the presence of Free alternatives; that the Free alternatives are not "good enough"; deliberately ignore guideline or even attempt to game policies and guidelines against each other. I have seen the contributor of invaluable war photographs be insulted for providing an example that it is often not impossible to obtain Free images.

In such a volatile environment, I have to consider my position: I do not have the necessary authority to keep the mobs in line, and I have no reason to waste my time or persist in duties that give me no joy.

I already expect to be harassed for some time in retaliation for my efforts; it would be foolish to risk exposing myself any more. Rama (talk) 11:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Please stop being disruptive

A large number of editors, admins, many of whom are doing active image cleanup, have told you that you're interpreting this outside the community consensus. You're interpreting the policy outside how everyone else does.

Please initiate proper discussions on changing the policy if that's your goal. It's less disruptive to use the process in an abusive, out of community consensus way than simply zapping things was - but it's still disruptive.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Well I feel completely in agreement with many things I read on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. I do not have the feeling that I am nearly as isolated as you seem to believe -- though the vast majority of people do have very little idea indeed of the policies on Fair Use. Rama (talk) 23:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. I am not an idiot, nor ignorant. I disagree with overly strict non-free policy enforcement - but I am aware of what it says, and have deleted plenty of images which didn't fall under it.

When this many people, including the most active long term non-free content enforcers, indicate to you that you're going too far, you should listen. Please.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rama

You may be interested in this: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rama. Toodles. --Jayron32 19:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll be mesmerised. Rama (talk) 23:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Even with all our disagreements...

Taking a break between some finals I was looking through all your subpages at commons. I know we have some profound disagreements but I couldn't help but noticing how extraordinary your generous contributions to Wikipedia have been. So, if you don't mind me doing this (the images deserve much more)...

		The Photographer's Barnstar
		For a truly remarkable collection of images you have so graciously donated to the project. One of the most impressive collections I have seen uploaded to Wikipedia/Wikimedia! Your work does not go unnoticed! DR04 (talk) 05:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

You are too kind.

The most valuable contribution I actually ever made was in fact an e-mail that I wrote to Mikhail Evstafiev, after which he created an account at uploaded these images [3].

I hope that this can help understand why I am more reluctant than others to accept that some things are impossible to illustrate with Free material. Rama (talk) 10:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Can I just say that where an artist like this is concerned, I entirely support your contention that it would probably be impossible to create a valid fair use rationale, and entirely the best option is to see if the artist can be persuaded to generously release an image or two.Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I actually think that you should keep that sort of remarks for yourself. You have an amazing audacity for somebody who has never uploaded anything onto Commons, much less anything of value. Rama (talk) 13:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Glad to see that good faith is alive and well Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Rama! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 7 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 399 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

1. Jean Lacouture - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
2. Eric Brill - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
3. Pierre Marie Gallois - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
4. Abd al Malik (rapper) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
5. Anne Cuneo - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
6. Bruno Dary - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
7. Nicolas Grimal - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Eric Brill

The article Eric Brill has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No references or sources going to notability; has been like that for 20+ Months

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Codf1977 (talk) 09:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Jackyd101/Images of the Battle of the Nile

Hi, I appreciated your edits to this page and since you know quite a lot about image formatting I was wondering if you had any idea why the image for John Thomas Serres' painting looks so strange? Any help you can give would be greatly appreciated. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I would be delighted to be of use, but I am uncertain what the problem is. I am not familiar with this painting, so I do not know what the original looks like, and the image at Commons and here seems faithful to what I see on the Internet. What seems to be the problem? Rama (talk) 19:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it is just on my computer, but when it appears in the table it is surrounded by a white border that I accidentally included in the first version I uploaded but later removed. Its only a small thing, but it would be useful to know how to deal with it for future reference.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes. This is a rather typical problem when you re-upload an image with the same name. At the first use of the image at a small format, like in the gallery, a server resizes the image in store to the desired size, and this smaller image is kept somewhere. If you re-upload the image, the thumbnails are not necessarily made anew, depending on the mood of the server that day, and some time can lapse before the server feels like refreshing them. The problem should solve itself after some time; if you are in a hurry, you can re-upload the image under a different name to force the thumbnail server to process the image, and delete the first image as a duplicate. I agree that this is a bit disconcerting. Rama (talk) 20:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much that is good to know. If it is going to sort itself out on its own then I'll leave it to do so. By the way, did you manage to put together any more articles on French captains of the Battle of the Nile? --Jackyd101 (talk) 21:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

No, sorry, though I may have found a lead to a book that could possibly be an equivalent to the dictionary I use for ships. If I ever get my hands on this, it would considerably facilitate this part of the endeavour. Rama (talk) 21:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for all the work you've done already.--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD that may be of interest to you

Since you wrote PLSA, your input at Recommind's AfD (a company that claims to use this) would be appreciated. Pcap ping 00:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I know that Recommind exists and that it was founded by Hofmann, who designed PLSA. I did not know that PLSA was patented, I do not know exactly what Recommind does, and I do not know whether they are notable or not. Rama (talk) 11:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Trafalgar - Fact or Fiction

Hi Rama, There is a statement to be found in various articles about French Navy ranks that after the Battle of Trafalgar, that French naval officers are no longer called "sir" (or the French equivalent) at Napoleon's orders. I have not seen it referenced anywhere and it has recently been removed from the Trafalgar article, see Talk:Battle of Trafalgar#French Navy officers have not been called "sir" ever since ?. Other places where it or a close equivalent still exists in the article are Ranks in the French Navy, French_Navy#Addressing_officers and French_name#Military. Do you know if this is true or a myth and if its true can you point me towards a reference. Thanks Dabbler (talk) 09:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It is true that you address a Navy lieutenant (three stripes) as "capitaine" and not as "mon capitaine" as done in the Army. I have seen the Trafalgar theory written in books, but what credit to give it I cannot say. I'll try to find references for these books when I have then handy (next week probably).

Cheers! Rama (talk) 11:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Dachau full immersion tank image...

I may be missing something, but why did you make this edit? Isn't this obvious why it's not replaceable? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 15:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Obviously not. I would not have made the edit then. Rama (talk) 15:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be carrying on with your peculiar views on repaceability but simply tagging images rather than summarily deleting them. This is only slightly less disruptive than before. –xeno^talk 15:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The fact that you didn't notice this vandalism before tagging the image also leads me to believe you're not even reviewing the fair use claim prior to tagging. –xeno^talk 15:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh. What would you replace it with? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 16:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that the answer is "nothing". I've removed a whole lot of those tags you've added. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 17:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

That is completely out of order. You are mass-reverting a whole lot of review requests on your own account, while you are obviously involved in the matter. Of course, I strongly doubt that anybody will contest your actions.

On the other hand, I see my attempts to implement our policies on non-Free material systematically sabotaged, whatever the circumstances, whatever the obviousness of the case. Whether I delete files or nominate them, whether they can be replaced or are replaced. There is simply no way that a frivolously uploaded non-Free file can be deleted.

I suggest that you and Xeno's mob stop the hypocrisy and go to Wikipedia talk:Non-free content and start discussing abolishing the policies altogether. As for the personal lynching, it is unwarranted, despicable and an utter disgrace. Rama (talk) 17:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record: File:Israel'sDepartmentStoreboycott.jpg is so very much irreplaceable by a Free photograph that this very image itself is available on Commons, in much better quality, as File:Bundesarchiv Bild 102-14469, Berlin, Boykott-Posten vor jüdischem Warenhaus.jpg. Rama (talk) 18:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Your response that it was obvious was not obvious at all to me. I rather think that you are the one out of order here, this really does look to me like this is disrupting to make a point. I'm not sure what you mean by "involved". - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 22:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

You are involved because you are contesting my request for review. It is fine to contest my request for review, but you can't both contest it and then close it. Or at least, I certainly could not, even in the most obvious of the cases (like an image being uploaded in a better quality on Commons with a Free licence). Apparently, you can.

My answer is to the effect that you are reverting the burden of the proof. I am not required to proof that the image is replaceable, you have to prove that it is not. Rama (talk) 08:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Rama, many Holocaust images are in the public domain in their country of origin, but are not clearly so in the U.S. Therefore, we still sometimes have to claim fair use on Wikipedia, even when an image is on the Commons; this one, for example, is PD in Poland where it was taken, but its status in the U.S. is unclear. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 03:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I realise this. What I am saying is that we have great numbers of actually Free images, on Commons, that could very well replace a great number of the non-Free images on Holocaust, and, according to our policies on non-Free material, must replace them. Rama (talk) 08:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem with that is twofold, Rama. First, it depends on what you mean by "replace." If an article discusses the issue of people being burned in pits in Auschwitz, I'd like to be able to show a photograph of that happening, rather than a generic image of Holocaust victims. With the image of the Romani children that you tagged for deletion, for example, I can't think which image would be a replacement for that.

The second problem is that it's not clear that some of the images on the Commons really have been released. For example, this one has apparently been released under a Creative Commons licence by the German government. But the German govt doesn't know who took it, or whether the photographer worked for the government (or if they do know, it's not on the govt's image file, which says photographer unknown). Their release of the image means they are claiming copyright, but it's not clear that they have the authority to do that. We've had the same problem with various Holocaust museums; they claim copyright of images where they have no knowledge of their provenance. The safest thing with such images—and many, if not most, Holocaust images are of unknown authorship or provenance—is to claim fair use until such time that the images pass into the public domain by virtue of their age. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 08:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The first problem is mostly editorial. I am not interested in the question of whether an image of such or such particular victim in such or such position is absolutely needed. I note, however, that no rational has been given as to why, for instance, File:Holocaust123.JPG could possibly be so much better than File:Some of the bodies being removed by German civilians for decent burial at Gusen Concentration Camp, Muhlhausen, near Linz, Austria.jpg to illustrate "Victims of the Holocaust" that we need to use the first, demonstrably non-Free, rather than the second, taken by the US Army and thus in the Public Domain. As far as I am concerned, this is a blatant violation of the policy and a symptom of a systemic dysfunction.

The second matter is more technical and typical of what you find on Commons. Notably, we have had many problems with the US government claiming photographs taken by known photographers to be in the public domain, in apparent disregard for international copyright laws. In the particular case that you raise, the Bundesarchiv project was carefully negotiated with Germany and can quite reasonably be relied upon. Rama (talk) 08:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

You still have not explained to me what File:Dachau cold water immersion.jpg would be replaced with. It's a genuine question Rama. Can you please provide the image that is equivalent? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not have to. You have to prove why it is irreplaceable. Once again, you are reverting the burden of the proof. Please read the policy on Non-Free images. Rama (talk) 14:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. I obviously cannot get another picture of Nazis performing human experimentation in hypothermia. And I obviously cannot go back in time to when they were doing the experimentation to take a CC-by-SA image. This is all quite self-evident. It should be easy for you to explain what you would replace the image with - I'm fairly certain that the only reason that you are giving me this response is because you cannot tell me this, because there is no image to replace it with. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 00:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I am unimpressed by arguments based on the words "ridiculous" and "time machine" (or similar). In several occasions, Free photographs of dead people have been found after such claims were made and those who had uttered them were ridiculed; on the subject at hand, we do have a large number of Free photographs, courtesy of the German federal archives, that are available on Commons without any need for a time machine, and that are most certainly not ridiculous. All it takes is to look them up, there is even a search engine to this effect.

Since I have to spoon-feed everything to you, I will go as far as to point you the Commons category Category:Nazi medical experiments.

To answer your insinuation, even if there was presently no image available to replace the image you mention, it would not mean that it would be irreplaceable, only that a replacement has not yet been found. It is the difference between something that you have not done yet and something that is impossible. One has to be very careful before saying that something is impossible.

And in any case, I refer you to the policy for maybe the third time in a row: it is up to you to prove that the image is irreplaceable. When an image is indeed irreplaceable, one can tell: see Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima for an example of a legitimate Fair Use claim. Rama (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I am also unimpressed by your arguments, and when I asked a polite question with a rude non-response, I was even less impressed. This is actually a fairly iconic image in its own right of an experiment undertaken in hypothermia by the SS, which is one of the reasons that the BMJ published it. I find your reasoning to be interesting, but wrong. The user conduct RFC will hopefully resolve this issue. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 07:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It is not polite to start a question with "it is ridiculous". As for the "non-response", I gave you a direct link to the category that you should have found yourself if you had done the minimal research in the topic which you brought yourself. The last time I went as far as to do the work myself and replace the images in the article, I was reverted as "non-consensual and pointy", so I really can't imagine what more I could do for you.

If the image you are talking about is indeed "fairly iconic", then say so. Talk about the image rather than using it simply to illustrate the article and save yourself the time of a minute-long research on Commons. See how it is done with Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima at Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, and see how Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima was removed from articles where it was used for mere cosmetic purposes. You cannot use Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima to illustrate "A bunch of people with a flag on a Pacific island", in this role, File:First Iwo Jima Flag Raising.jpg (or one of the other images of the category) must be used in its place. Not "can", must. That's the policy.

There is no such thing as "my reasoning". There is only the non-Free use policy. I did not write it, I happen to approve it, I am disappointed that it is not applied because this poodle-photo-on-a-Geocities-webpage mentality weakens Wikipedia. And I am appalled by the extends to which some people are willing to resort in order to protect the state of things in which anything can be claimed as "Fair Use", however frivolous, and in which Free material is seen more as a menace than an asset because it requires some little amounts of work to illustrate articles. Rama (talk) 09:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I don't see how it can be relied upon. No one seems to know who took that image, or even whether the photographer was working for the German government. They can't claim they own images if they don't know the provenance, and if they don't own them, they can't release them, no matter how careful the negotiations. I do agree with you regarding the two images you linked to of bodies; I've often wanted to remove that one from The Holocaust, and haven't only because I can hardly bear to look at it, and I suspect I'd be reverted. Regarding the others, there were several you tagged that really are unique and aren't remotely replaceable. Anyway, there's no point in harping on about it. I just hope it won't happen again, because all it does is cause extra work and grief, for you too. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 14:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Somebody at the Bundesarchiv told us it can be relied upon, and I see no reason to doubt this. Great amounts of time and care have been devoted to the questions on licences, both by the professionals of the Bundesarchiv and the volunteers of Wikimedia-de. But you can always contact the Bundesarchiv and ask them about this specific image.

Your "I suspect I'd be reverted" backs my statements that the policy on non-Free files are not only ignored, but actively opposed. If the policy was remotely in force, it should be unimaginable that such a replacement be reverted.

Regarding the others, I have seen none of them labelled "This iconic photography was taken in such circumstances by such people...". Some of those I questioned might be iconic and relevant on their own right, in which case I agree that they can be claimed under our policy, but they must be clearly stated as such and discussed as such in the article.

However, I feel that pretty much any image that happens to strike the fancy of somebody tends to be claimed as being "unique" -- all images are unique, the question is whether they are iconic and relevant on their own right, or not; and this is a bad thing for those images that are actually relevant. That being said, the review process is precisely that, a review process to acertain which images are really needed and which ones can be dispensed of. In any case, all these questions would be relevant if the review process was allowed to work but as you said above and as the mass-revert incident proved, this process is not allowed to function. Rama (talk) 14:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 16:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The clean up on English spelling ERC 90 Sagaie

Rama Thanks for getting the corrections and editing. Appreciate it. I still have a long learning curve it seems. Again, thanks. --Jackehammond (talk) 10:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, thank you for the content, that is what matters most. Cheers! Rama (talk) 11:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Khalid Sheikh Mohammed image widely published in September 2009 -a.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Khalid Sheikh Mohammed image widely published in September 2009 -a.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Geo Swan (talk) 18:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Salut

Salut Rama. Je te remercie pour la traduction de l'article fr:Classe Mistral que j'ai rédigé et m'étonne que Mistral class amphibious assault ship ne soit classé que Start-Class sur le projet Military history. Je vais m'investir un peu plus sur en.wiki et j'ai rajouté des liens externes en anglais et vais renseigner les {{Clarifyme}} et {{Citation needed}}, voire essager de traduire le reste, bien que mon anglais soit plutôt de niveau en-2. Peux-tu m'indiquer la procédure pour faire traduire ici d'autres de mes bons articles du français à l'anglais ? Et existe t-il un lieu de discussion des contributeurs francophones ou est-il prévu d'en créer un ? Merci pour tes réponses. Cordialement, Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Salut, et merci à toi pour l'article français.

Il existe un Wikipedia:Translation qui fait ça. Si je peux t'être utile avec un point d'anglais, je serais ravi de t'aider dans la mesure de mes moyens. En particulier, si je peux t'être utile pour Mistral class amphibious assault ship, y compris avec des schémas ou autres, n'hésite pas à demander (pour je ne sais trop quelle raison, j'aime bien les BPC).

Bonne continuation et encore merci à toi ! Rama (talk) 09:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

PS: en ce qui concerne la qualité, je pense qu'en l'état, ça vaut au moins un C en Military history, et on devrait commencer à demander des avis extérieurs pour le faire passer en GA. Rama (talk) 10:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 22:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello Rama. I am sorry to inform you that as a result of the above discussion, the community has banned you from using the {{di-replaceable fair use}} tag. This sanction has also been listed at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions, and a note shall be included in the RfC/U.

On a separate note, if you support the motion to close the RfC/U, you are welcome to make a statement to that effect in the relevant section (on the RfC/U talk page). Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Trafalgar order of battle and casualties

You have made some edits on 16 February to the article on Trafalgar order of battle and casualties. Unfortunately you did not add any inline citations for this material. As I am sure you will have noticed the article has inline citations for all the information in the article. I would very much prefer this to remain true. So please could you add inline citations for the information you added.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I fail to see how the information that I changed was more sourced before. In this light, I find your "I would very much prefer this to remain true" rather odd. All the information I have added is sourced by Dictionnaire des capitaines de vaisseau de Napoléon, Danielle & Bernard Quintin, SPM, 2003, ISBN 2-901952-42-9 . It is a dictionary, the page is thus trivial to find. Rama (talk) 22:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the citations.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

My apologies

No doubt I was hasty in moving the page you started. Is this ship naming convention along the lines of the prefix "USS" in American ships?--Supertouch (talk) 13:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

When the navy uses a prefix, like the "HMS" of the Royal Navy, we use the Prefix_Name, and Prefix_Name_(date) when several ships have born the same name. For those that do not use a prefix, the conventions is Nationality_Type_Name_(Date). In this case, the French Navy does not use a prefix, and there was another Eylau in 1808. Rama (talk) 13:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, and again my mistake.--Supertouch (talk) 13:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem, that's how one learns. Cheers! Rama (talk) 13:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Tapeterrible.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Tapeterrible.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Jean-Jacques Magendie, Michel Chesneau & Pierre Dumanoir le Pelley

YOu recently created an article on Jean-Jacques Magendie. Is the Dictionnaire des capitaines de vaisseau de Napoléon the source for all the uncited material in the article? The reason for asking is that the article needs inline citations.--20.133.0.13 (talk) 13:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I have added inline citations for the article you recently created for Michel Chesneau.--20.133.0.13 (talk) 13:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You also created an article on Pierre Dumanoir le Pelley - what were the sources for this? Would it be possible to add inline citations?--20.133.0.13 (talk) 13:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is the case for all articles for which I do not put in-line citations. It's a way to avoid having an in-line citation for every sentence pointing to the same source. Normally, every point mentioned in these articles can be verified in the Dictionnaire des capitaines de vaisseau de Napoléon. Rama (talk) 13:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Stop being abusive

Stop being abusive. Stop leaving rude meassge for people. Stop blindly reverting changes without explantion.

Not very nice is it?

The world 'please' is only six letters but goes a very long way in not annoying people and ensuring a constructive dialogue. You have constantly revert changes without any explantion, and when you finally deem to both to communicate you simply leave rude and unhelpful messages. And, as opposed to what you claim spelling is important and spelling that is relevant to the subject of the article is also important.

It may be worth your while stepping back for a short period and re-considering how your treat others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.4.25 (talk) 11:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Your edits have disturbed the normal working of the template. I do not consider it beyond the realm of the possible that people consider the effect of their edits, and failing that, try to understand why others revert their edits. Your claim that "French" spelling should be used in English texts is without merit. After several iterations of your disturbing edit, I have taken the time to explain your error to you, in a tone that I do not feel contrasts significantly with your edit commentaries. Overall, I do not think that your little lessons in manners are really needed. Rama (talk) 11:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Exocet imapct.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Exocet imapct.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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.

• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.

• If you recieved this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.

• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 10:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)