User talk:Rama/archive 11

Your drawings

See Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Derivative_drawings_by_User:Rama. Ty 01:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

JF

Joyeuses Fêtes et bonne année! Alexpl (talk) 23:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Besoin d'un avis

J'aurai besoin d'un avis: j'ai ces zoom sur mon APN:

14-45 (*2 pour équivalent 35mm)

45-200 (*2)

J'ai vu que ce zoom était disponible bien que assez cher par rapport aux deux autres (300-400 euros le zoom pour les deux autres et 850 pour ce dernier)

14-140 (*2)

As tu un avis sur ce zoom dans l'optique de remplacer le 14-45 (histoire de pouvoir faire du portrait et du 28 mm si nécessaire.) ?

Merci par avance.

Esby (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Il faudrait que j'essaye, mais a priori, ce sont tous des zooms relativement entré de gamme (ouvertures à 4.5-5.6, vignettage assez marqué). 90mm (en format 135) est une focale correcte pour un portrait, donc ton 14-45 devrait être utilisable dans ce rôle. Le 14-140 me paraît être le genre d'optique "bonne à tout faire", que tu laisses sur ton boitier tout le temps, mais qui en pratique annulent l'intérêt de la monture interchangeable, et avec des performances médiocres à toutes les focales; on ne peut pas vraiment faire de zoom qui parte du grand angle et finisse à une très longue focale sans faire des tas de compromis. Cela étant dit, si les graphes ne mentent pas, les performances du 14-140 à 50mm sont vraiment bonnes (mieux que le 14-45).

De toute façon c'est celui qui utilise le truc qui a raison; demande au vendeur de prndre quelques photos avec le 14-140 et regarde si ça te plaît. Bonne chance ! Rama (talk) 01:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Merci. Vu le prix du bestiau et mes moyens je vais probablement attendre 2-3 mois avant d'envisager de l'acheter. Histoire qu'il baisse un peu... D'un autre coté, il y a un objectif en fisheye d'annoncé, donc je songe à passer au fisheye pour mes panoramas et à utiliser le 14-140 dans le futur pour les usages communs, et tant pis pour les photos d'oiseau, de toute manière le 200mm est pas assez lumineux et n'aggrandit pas assez, à moins d'acheter un ou plusieurs gros flash... Esby (talk) 08:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Pour les photos d'oiseaux, il va te falloir du matériel très spécial, genre un 400mm f/2.8.

Note que tout ce que j'ai dit plus haut doit s'entendre modulo le fait que le fabriquant est un très bon opticien, et qu'avec l'évolution des méthodes de calcul et des matériaux, il y a de très bonnes optiques sur le marché. En valeur absolue, tous ces zooms sont très bons. Dommage qu'ils n'ouvrent pas plus, par contre, ça limite leur utilité en basse lumière. Rama (talk) 09:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but no thanks

The new file name for nazi camp is not the one that was suggested in rename template, and is even more pointy than it used to be. It is not West Bank Barrier, it is how latuff sees West Bank Barrier in his sick mind. The suggested file name was "Carlos Latuff - entry for International Holocaust Cartoon Competition 2006.png". It is more or less netural, and not pointy name one could come up for that ... Thanks, but no thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not care. Go away, discuss that with people who are interested. Do not cause any further disruption or I will block you or others. I hope that the meaning density is high enough for you now. Rama (talk) 17:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I most certainly would not mind you're blocking "others" . A very good idea indeed, please go ahead with that. .Just one more WP:Point, if I may: Who gave you the right to say "gratuitous accusations of antisemitism"? What made you to think you're qualified to make such statements? Please have a nice day.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

One more thing, if you do not care, as I believe you do not, I consider your recent contributions in changing file names a sloppy administrative job to say the least. An admin, who deals with such sensitive issues should care, or not to get involved.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not involved. I renamed the file in good deal to prove to you that you could reach admins simply by pointing to a problem rather than by making a tantrum. Apparently I failed to completely satisfy your desires, too bad; but that is precisely the thing in which I am not interested: having to comply to the line of the Party, being dragged in the mud in which you, your friends and your ennemies love to swim, and be classfied as "pro-this" or "anti-that". Who do you think you are and what gave you the idea that you would solve the Israelo-Palestinian conflict on Commons? Or fight it, for that matters? That disgusts me and I am not allowing anybody to make that sort of behaviour and atmosphere the standard on Commons. Rama (talk) 18:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I am a human being, a person, who suffers because of the conflict you do not care about. If in nineteen thirties in Germany there were more people like I am, maybe there never would have been World War II."Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." I am talking about you, Rama, and the others, who do not want to be "dragged in the mud". Warm regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for my comment about this but: "If in nineteen thirties in Germany there were more people like I am, maybe there never would have been World War II.", Sorry, but lol?!? What kind of argumentation is that? Past cannot be changed. So don't make moralist attempt on people you don't agree with. Don't drag us in your hate problems. And technically speaking, making a fuss about latuff works only make him more known ( w:Streisand effect ) Esby (talk) 09:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

If you suffer from this conflict, you are either unbelievably unlucky (and someone in that position is probably not here), or suffering from your own fury. The Israel-Palestinian conflict kills about one Palestinian a day and one Israeli every four days; that level of casualties is low enough for the conflict to drag on and on and on, and annoy the civilised world, without any incentive for a conclusion. No, I do not want to be dragged into that, and even least into the cheap Internet pseudo-discussions and rows about that. The Second World War was a real bloodbath; any comparison between the Second World War and Israel/Palestine, from either side, is mere obscene appeal to emotions, and is despicable.

All Human life is valuable, including those of Israelis, Palestinians, and also none of the aboveestine are small countries whose conflict is given a perfectly undue attention; there are far more serious situations in other countries that go completely unreported. And you pester me about a bloody filename on a website (that I have tried to improve according to your request, on top of that); have you no shame?

As for the rest, which is the real matter, I will explain my policy.

For an end to Israelo-palestinian bickering on Commons

Commons is a repository of Free media; it is not censored but it is not bound to be a medium for other interests than being a repository of Free media.

1) Those Latuff things are theoretically acceptable here because they are Free, but they have caused far more than their share of trouble; we, those who care about Commons rather than some cheap political agendas, do not have to take that shit.
Thus, I will arbitrarly delete any new image from Latuff or similar crap which would not be justified by precise encyclopedic reasons (like being second prize at the International Competition for Bad Taste). That counts also for the Latuff imitators, the Latuf contradictors, etc. I reserve the possibility of deleting any existing image whose generation of petty disputes exceeds the usefulness. Commons is not a freak show of bad taste.

2) The Israel/Palestine conflict will not be solved by comparing people with Nazis. That is true at the UN and it is ever more true on Commons. Thus, I will block anybody making irrelevant allusions to the Second World War or Nazis, or cast unconsensual accusations of Holocaust denial or of antisemitism (list not exhaustive); I will give the same treatment to excessive claims for "security", "integrity", "religious freedom", "innocent civilians" or other empty buzzwords. That counts also for oblique allusions and twisted schemes like this [1]. Use of loaded terms (like "censorship", "genocide") can constitute a blockable offence. The people who use artificial terms like "new Antisemitism", "War on Terror" or "homicide bomber" will be blocked, mocked, and rethorically stoned with Freedom fries.

3) I will block with particular harshness upon any attempt at gaming the rules or the present resolutions, including sock- and meat-puppets.

I invite all admins of good will -- those who leave their personal opinions at the door when they put on their admin hat -- to co-sign and enforce the above in the interest of having some quiet and common sense here so we can work in peace at creating a repository of Free media.
Rama (talk) 09:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Esby (talk) 10:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Dschwen (talk) 17:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Hm, in principal I agree with the whole idea behind this. Especially point 1. Although point 2 makes me fee a bit uneasy, as it is hard to draw lines which make distinguishable from arbitrariness. With respect to point one, how would comment on this statement (context is needed, but it refers to the porn deletions by Jimbo, which I presented as a precedent for removing those Latuff things)? --Dschwen (talk) 16:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

There are always cases in which you have to be arbitrary to some degree if anything is to be done at all. The arbitrary must just be minimal and sensible. As far as I am concerned, Jimbo launched a massive crusade on an arbitrary base (violating "minimal"), and departed from his senses (deleting 19th century engravings, caving in to Fox News pressure thus giving them events to report on, etc). Only the lack of proportions and senses are problematic in Jimbo's actions -- that is why his authority had not been contested in these proportions before, and was at this point.

Refering to Jimbo's fiasco to back the deletion of superfluous Latuff images is probably not good PR, but the nature of the problem is the same. Implemented with a sense of proportions and opportunities, I see no problem with deletion of either superflous sexual images or polemical ones. Rama (talk) 16:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that is a sensible answer. In combination with Walter's statement below it makes me very inclined to co-sign. --Dschwen (talk) 17:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk_page_guidelines says, "Don't label or personally attack people or their edits." I see no reason not to support point 2 based on that straightforward guidance. I agree with points 1 and 3 also. Commons is not a soapbox; moreover, I can't imagine anyone being influenced by advocacy on Commons. It would be more effective to write a letter to a political leader or a newspaper. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

My summary

Dear rama, for the last few hours

you threaten "to block me and others" ,

you said you were disgusted with me,

you said:"That an artist of Mbz1's value could degrade herself like this is reminiscent of the Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde",

you said I am suffering from my "own furry" only because I said I am suffering, when every innocent human being is killed,

you asked me to have a shame.

You even tried to imply that I am using socks.

In response to all of that I would like to share one more quote with you, please. It is by Abraham Lincoln:

Tis better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.

With that I am leaving you, and "all admins of good will" right here and right now. Please do inform me, when you will block me or others.Warm regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Correction: I did not suggest that you employ socks. The above policy is designed for a number of people; if anything, your remark shows how self-centred your views are.

As for "suffering when every innocent human being is killed", if you actually did, you would hardly notice Israel at all. And you'd be twitching on the ground in agony rather than littering my talk page.

The rest is an excellent summary. Rama (talk) 15:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Rama! May I please ask you, if I am allowed to support the summary you wrote, or it is only for administrators? In any case I do support it with all my heart. I had to admit that I hardly read it before I put my summary out, but now, when I did, I cannot agree with you more, and btw thanks for supporting the simplified proposal on Village pump! You see, we are able to agree on something :)And now you could go ahead, and really block me "with particular harshness" :), if you feel I offended you in any way. Warm regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Please help replace this outdated license

Hello!

Thank you for donating images to the Wikimedia Commons. You have uploaded some images in the past with the license {{PD}}. While this was a license acceptable in the early days of Wikimedia, since January 2006, this license has been deprecated and since October 2008 no new uploads with this license was allowed.

The license on older images should be replaced with a better and more specific license/permissions and you can help by checking the images and adding {{PD-self}} if you are the author or one of the other templates that you can see in the template on the image page.

Thank you for your help. If you need help feel free to ask at Commons talk:Licensing or contact User:Zscout370.

The images we would like you to check are:

• File:Emile-Bertin.jpg
• File:Map-032.jpg
• File:Blesse-p011438.jpg
• File:Fete federation gardesnat1790.jpg
• File:British-p011074.jpg
• File:Map-031.jpg
• File:Map-043a.jpg
• File:Soldats-canadiens-p004590.jpg
• File:Francois Aubert 1.jpg
• File:FTP-p012904.jpg
• File:Lettre-de-marque1.jpg
• File:Latouche.jpg
• File:Fete federatin doc6.jpg
• File:Soldats-canadiens-p004591.jpg
• File:Bombardements-p011228.jpg
• File:Juno-Beach-p004589.jpg
• File:Syringe.jpg
• File:Francois Aubert 2.jpg
• File:Planeur-p012949.jpg
• File:Luc Casabianca.jpg
• File:Francois Aubert 3.jpg
• File:Debarquement-p012701.jpg
• File:Letter-order-of-Saint-Louis.jpg
• File:Calendrier-republicain-debucourt.jpg
• File:Fete federation med1790b.jpg
• File:Fete federation bandeaujournal.jpg
• File:Fete de la federation panorama.jpg
• File:Sony mavica fd5.jpg
• File:Fete federation huebrt robert.jpg
• File:PA Bearn.jpg
• File:Fete federation med1790a.jpg
• File:Fallschrimjeager-p003307.jpg
• File:Eglise-p012448.jpg
• File:Liberation-p011643.jpg
• File:Fete de la federation 1790.jpg

BotMultichillT 21:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

FoP

Bonjour Rama,

j'ai vu que vous aviez demandé la suppression de File:BibliothèqueFrançoisMitterrand.jpg au motif "No FoP in France". J'imagine qu'il s'agit du droit de l'architecte mais dans ce cas, vu qu'il s'agit d'un panorama, je me demande si cela s'applique vraiment. Si c'est malgré tout le cas, quasiment toutes mes contributions sont à supprimer (sauf celle de la tour Eiffel qui doit être dans le domaine public). N'y voyez aucune rancoeur de ma part, du genre "puisque c'est comme ça, supprimez tout ce que j'ai téléversé", au contraire juste la volonté de respecter au mieux les règles en vigueur.

Cordialement, ILJR (talk) 11:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Oui, c'est bien une question du droit de l'architecte: selon le droit français, strico sensu, on n'a pas le droit d'attribuer une licence libre à une photographie d'une oeuvre architecturale protégée.

Il y a une jurisprudance favorable sur les photographies qui comportent une oeuvre architecturale protégée, c'est-à-dire dont le sujet n'est pas l'oeuvre elle-même, mais dont le sujet serait impossible à photographier sans inclure l'oeuvre dedans. Je pense que dans l'absolu, votre image releverait de ce cas de figure, mais le titre " BibliothèqueFrançoisMitterrand.jpg" rend cette position difficile à défendre.

Je vous remercie pour votre attitude très sportive en dépit de ces circonstances exaspérantes -- et qui m'exaspèrent moi aussi, soyez-en sûr. J'ai eu des photos supprimées pour cette raison, je suis donc bien placé pour savoir qu'on oublie facilement une règle aussi contraire à l'intuition. Malheureusement, ces lois-ci ne font pas l'objet d'harmonisation au niveau européen, et je ne vois pas ce qui inciterait l'Assemblée à légiférer dans un sens moins liberticide.

Merci encore et bonne continuation ! Rama (talk) 15:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

SVG Again

Hi Rama,

I finally managed to fabricate an SVG using Inkscape. Could you please take a look at the file and let me know if I have made any serious technical mistakes? Alexpl (talk) 23:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations! When you start getting the hang of it, Inkscape becomes quite an enjoyable tool.

Your file is a valid SVG, nothing wrong with it. You might be interested in using groups (Ctrl+G) to handle several objects together (like the line on the submarine hull and the hull), but this is up to the taste of the creator.

From the disposition of the stabilisers on the unfortunate submarine, I'd say that the design of the insignia is rather aggressively explicit...

Cheers! Rama (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Glad to hear that! Thank you. I started to work with GIMP and thought, while learning something new anyway, it would be a good idea to give Inkscape another try. With enough coffee for a small army and music from the 80´s Oldies Channel it worked :D. The sourcefile Jpeg from the divisions homepage was low quality and there seems to be another version of that patch [2] (white cat, red eyes and grey sub), but I just wanted to get started. With best regards, Alexpl (talk) 20:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Update: I tried to draw a more complex image, using groups and color-effects [3]. Unfortunately the picture-preview, here on commons, now shows the submarine hull as partially transparent, while the full screen view looks ok. [4] Do you have any ideas how to fix that, so the hull is also displayed solid in the preview ? Alexpl (talk) 14:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Cool!

Yes, the hull uses a gradient of black where the light stops are lighter because they are semi-transparent. On a white background, like that of the Inkscape editor or on the full screen view, you get the output that you desire, but the transparency shows on the picture preview. You need to select the hull ("enter group", "enter group", select) and then edit the stops of the gradient (click on the "Fill" button at the bottom for direct access) so that their Alpha (opacity) is always at 255, and adjusting the lightness to the desired value. I have uploaded File:Akula Escape Pod-b.svg, where you can see the result.

I very much look forwards to seeing you next creations. Cheers! Rama (talk) 14:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Problem fixed - at least it looks like it worked. Now I can continue my work on the Akula-class article! Alexpl (talk) 16:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

edit: I guess we dont need File:Akula Escape Pod-b.svg anymore. You can delete it. Btw: I now understand why you have chosen such a large scale for your Suffren cruiser drawing. Inkscape is not really much fun to work with on small scales (extreme headache alert!). regards, Alexpl (talk) 09:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

File:CACM-film92jpg.jpg

File:CACM-film92jpg.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

--Justass (talk) 23:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

thanks for fixin'

thanks for fixing Image:Juliett_484_sub.jpg Andyzweb (talk) 22:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Entree de Noron L Abbaye.jpg

Salut Rama, Coyau me dit que tu es oversighter ici sur commons, raison pour laquelle je m'adresse à toi : il y a une message en page de discussion de l'image ci dessus (page de discussion de fr.wiki) où une Ip demande à ce que le patronyme du photographe ne soit pas conservé dans le commentaire de l'up-load. Si tu peux faire quelque chose. Merci d'avance. --P@d@w@ne 23:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Voilà, Anastasie a fait son oeuvre. Rama (talk) 10:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Pluton

Your drawing of Pluton lacks the lower forward 138.6-mm gun. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, good call. Fixed. Rama (talk) 22:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your vote on my RfCU

I would like to thank you for taking the time to review my request for checkuser rights. I hope one more CU will make a difference, at least for the other CUs' workload! Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 16:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Jonathan Sumption-signature.jpg

---

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 12:56, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Delphi Ext.jpg

File:Delphi Ext.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

--Justass (talk) 16:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Un grand merci, Rama !

Je suis pratiquement sûre que tout est ok, parce que ton oeil a été plus percant que le mien sur le coup. Je pensais m'être égarée qu'une seule fois. Donc, merci encore et bonne journée ! -- Perky (talk) 07:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Ca ne va pas du tout, moi. Il y en a un autre sur ma PdD... d'aujourd'hui. Merci d'avance de réparer ma bêtise. J'ai honte. Amicalement. -- Perky (talk) 16:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Merky. -- Perky (talk) 14:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Description: Category:Lab mice by Rama

It would be nice to know much more about the photographed mice. Example: In my German articles about Albinism an Leucism I always search for confirmed photos oft the different color mutations. If there is somethin at the ear of a mouse I would like to know why and so on. Kersti (talk) 15:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikileaks video

Thanks for uploading it. emijrp (talk) 15:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Euhhhmmmm

Bravo pour les photos du Musée des Beaux-Arts de Strasbourg. Super, merci. Mais dans ta hâte de bien faire, tu t'es bien emmêlé les pinceaux, c'est le cas de le dire, pour les titres: File:Venus and Cupid mg 0006.jpg ( = Céphale et Procris), File:Cephalus and Procris mg 0008.jpg ( = Portrait d'un couple), File:Marriage at Cana mg 0002.jpg ( = Le Christ et la femme adultère)... Tu pourras corriger? Merci d'avance, Edelseider (talk) 10:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Merci, j'ai corrigé. Effectivement, j'ai eu un problème de correspondance entre notices et tableaux dont je ne me suis apperçu qu'en arrivant au portrait des fiancés, et j'ai oublié de corriger. Merci pour ta vigilence et bonne continuation ! Rama (talk) 15:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Et encore celle-ci: File:Christ and adulterous woman mg 0004.jpg. C'est Vénus et Cupidon, en fait. --Edelseider (talk) 09:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Fait, merci encore. Rama (talk) 10:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

US military bases

Hi. Could you edit the image showing the US military bases. I don't know how or what software is used to edit it without blurring the countries. The US left Iceland in September 2006. Cheers in advance. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson (talk) 07:53, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Done, thank you. Cheers! Rama (talk) 20:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Bouge de là !

Bonjour Rama, pourrais-tu me rendre un service et déplacer File:Kaysersberg, romanesque tympanum, atlante.jpg vers File:Kaysersberg, romanesque capital, atlante.jpg (erreur de titre)? merci d'avance ! Cordialement, --Edelseider (talk) 18:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Voilà qui est fait. Bravo, très joli tympan. Bonne continuation ! Rama (talk) 12:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Template:Adminbox

Template:Adminbox has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this template, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

--The Evil IP address (talk) 01:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Bouge, bouge, bouge de là!

Hello, puisque tu es administrateur, je viens de faire quatre demandes de renommage (http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=20&_target=Edelseider), pourrais-tu t'en charger ? Merci. Cordialement, Edelseider (talk) 16:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Voilà qui est fait. Bonne continuation ! Rama (talk) 17:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Encore un déplacement

File:Rangées de vignes près de Rorschwihr avec Château du Haut-Koenigsbourg à l'arrière-pla.jpg. Navré, mais à force d'essayer de donner des titres explicites - pour ne pas dire expressifs - à des fichiers, je commets parfois des fautes de frappe. Merci d'avance, bonne journée, Edelseider (talk) 06:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

PS : à quand des photos du Musée archéologique de Strasbourg ? --Edelseider (talk) 06:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Fait.

Ouais mais j'ai mis la priorité sur les Beaux-Arts, qui comportent quelques jolies pièces de la Renaissance. Rama (talk) 09:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Objectifs Canon

Salut Rama, tu permets que je t'embête avec des histoires de matos ? Tu peux répondre plus tard, et/ou par mail, ou ne pas répondre. Pour mémoire, j'ai un 450D, le 18-55 du kit, un 50mm f/1.8 et le Canon EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM. Et le 18-55 du kit commence à me gonfler, il est vraiment moins bon que les deux autres et je voudrais le remplacer, évidemment pour pas trop trop cher (j'achèterai probablement d'occasion), mais pour un objectif avec un bon piqué, raisonnablement lumineux (au moins équivalent au 3.5-5.6 du kit) et pas trop d'aberrations chromatiques ou géométriques. Je ne cherche pas forcément l'EF plutôt que l'EF-S, il est vraiment improbable que je passe un jour au full frame. Est-ce que tu saurais me dire quelque chose sur les objectifs suivants ?

• EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM : de ce que j'ai entendu il est particulièrement bon ?
• EF 17-40 f/4 L USM : on peut faire confiance à la gamme "L" les yeux fermés, ou pas forcément ?
• Tu sais quelque chose sur les EF 20-35 mm f/3,5-4,5 L USM et EF L 20-35 mm f/2,8 ? Le premier se trouve à beaucoup moins cher que le deuxième, il est vraiment moins bon ?
• Il y aurait d'autres objectifs à considérer ? Chez d'autres fabricants ?

Voilà, si tu as qqch à ajouter, des conseils... D'autre part je lorgne également sur le 60mm macro, toujours chez Canon, je n'en ai jamais entendu du mal. Merci d'avance si tu as le temps, sinon c'est pas grave. --Eusebius (talk) 08:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Toujours ravi de discuter boutique :)

• L'EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM est très bon, pas complètement dans la classe du 24-70 f/2.8 qui est l'équivalent en full-frame, mais c'est dans cette idée. En plus il est stabilisé, ce qui est utile pour les photos dans les musées. C'est nettement celui que je te conseille.
• Oui, la gamme L, c'est pas nécessairement un tout cohérent, mais il n'y a rien de mauvais dedans. Par contre, je ne te conseillerais pas cette objectif-là parce que tu vas
  1. n'ouvrir qu'à f/4, c'est pas assez lumineux si tu n'as pas des conditions très favorables
  2. payer pour pas mal de surface que tu n'utiliseras pas avec son EF-S
  3. avoir moins d'allonge en longues focales.

Le EF 20-35 mm f/3,5-4,5 USM est grand-angulaire grand public prévu pour les boitiers analogiques. Le 20-35 mm f/2,8, c'est l'ancêtre du 16-25 f/2.8 actuel, qui est un cran au-dessus du 17-40 f/4 auquel tu faisais allusion. Je ne te conseille ni l'un ni l'autre, le premier parce que c'est un peu bof, le second parce que même si c'est une optique magnifique, la plage focale est mal adaptée à ce que tu veux (et là encore, le prix sera élevé à cause d'une couverture full-frame que tu n'utilises pas).

Il y a des très bonnes alternatives chez d'autres opticiens; j'ai eu un Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 [5] qui était pas mal, et il y a un Tamron du même tonneau dont je n'ai pas de raison de penser du mal [6].

Disons que pour les principes généraux, je te conseille vivement de t'orienter progressivement vers des objectifs à ouverture constante à 2.8, d'une part parce qu'il y a un vraie différence entre f/4 et f/2.8 quand la lumière baisse (j'ai acheté un 24-70 f/2.8 après m'être retrouvé de nuit pris dans des émeutes avec un 24-105 f/4 stabilisé (la belle affaire)), et parce que même s'ils ne sont pas estampillés "L", tu auras une qualité sans commune mesure avec des trucs cheapos comme le 70-300 bas de gamme (le tiens est une itération nettement potable comparé à la version à laquelle je pense).

D'autre part, je te conseille de prendre un objectif allant au moins jusqu'à 50mm, parce que ça te permet de l'utiliser pour des portraits.

Le 60mm macro est, si j'ai bien compris, le pendant du 100mm macro. Comme tous les macro, il va avoir une très bonne définition; le 100mm est l'un des objectifs les plus amusants à utiliser que j'aie eus, si le 60mm est bien dans le même esprit, tu vas passer quelques temps à photographier tout ce qu'il y aura à tes pieds, comme un gosse de 5 ans avec une loupe.

Si je peux encore t'être utile, n'hésite pas; bonne chance, bon amusement et bonne continuation ! Rama (talk) 18:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Merci pour toutes ces infos très utiles ! Je vais regarder de plus près du côté du Sigma dont tu me parles. Mais même si tu me conseilles d'aller jusqu'au 50 "pour les portraits", je suis très satisfait de mon 50 actuel et j'observe que je suis quand même rarement à 55mm sur mon 18-55, vu que je fais pas mal de photo d'architecture (ce qui veut dire qu'en l'état actuel de mon équipement, je n'hésite pas à me poser et à changer d'objectif en cas de besoin). C'est pour ça que ça ne me gênait pas outre mesure de m'arrêter à 35mm, mais bon voilà. Et sinon pour le 70-300, c'est vraiment le max que je pouvais me payer au moment où je l'ai acheté, et encore on m'en a offert la moitié (cadeau de thèse). J'avais soigneusement évité le 75-300, je pense que c'est celui auquel tu fais allusion. Je suis très content de ce télé, et le fait qu'il n'ouvre qu'à f/4 ne me gêne pas outre mesure, vu que je ne fais pas vraiment du reportage. C'est sûr que je ferais peut-être plus de photo de concert si j'avais ton 70-200, mais bon voilà.

Dans un autre registre, j'ai investi dans du moyen format argentique, mais c'est une tout autre histoire et je ne sais pas si Commons verra mes productions avant longtemps... Merci encore, à plus. --Eusebius (talk) 19:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, oui, 75-300. J'en ai eu un, bon rapport qualité/prix, c'est dire s'il ne coûte pas cher.

Evidemment, dans ton cas, pour un portrait, tu as intérêt à sortir ton 50mm. Je disais ça dans la prespective où tu voudrais voyager léger, par exemple.

Chouette, le moyen format ! Qu'est-ce que tu t'es trouvé ?

Bonne continuation ! Rama (talk) 19:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

J'ai un Bronica ETRS (4.5x6) et un Mamiya RZ 67 (avec des optiques de RB67). Je n'ai pas encore de cellule qui fonctionne, mais j'ai commandé un prisme avec exposemètre pour le Bronica. Après on verra bien si j'ose de nouveau déclencher avec un argentique, et ce que je shoote... --Eusebius (talk) 19:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

J'ai opté pour le Tamron que tu m'as pointé, d'occasion. C'est clairement une amélioration, mais j'attends de voir à l'usage quand même. À plus. --Eusebius (talk) 09:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Arcole vernet.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Arcole vernet.jpg, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:Arcole vernet.jpg]]). If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work. If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

  — Jeff G. ツ 15:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Sommeil profond des admins

Bonjour Rama, franchement, je n'avais plus envie de t'embêter avec mes histoires de renommage, mais enfin voilà, j'ai apposé le tag "Rename" il y a plusieurs jours et il n'y a eu aucune réaction. Donc les fichiers concernés sont les suivants :

• File:Figured ledger stone in Musée de l'Oeuvre Notre-Dame.jpg
• File:Metzerals's town hall.JPG
• File:Church, school and town hall of Mittlach, haut-Rhin.jpg

Et puisqu'on y est, ce tableau n'est pas de Grünewald, il faudrait donc le renommer aussi File:Mathis Gothart Grünewald 048.jpg (titre suggéré : File:Vierge au jardinet, Maître rhénan anonyme, Musée de l'Oeuvre Notre-Dame)

Bien à toi et mille mercis

Edelseider (talk) 19:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Voilà qui est fait. On va bientôt pouvoir fonder une cabale alsacienne, ma parole ! Rama (talk) 09:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Eh oui... Tiens, n'oublie pas le pseudo-Grünewald. Il a déjà fait assez de dégâts sous cette fausse attribution. Merci encore. Edelseider (talk) 11:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Je l'ai renommé en File:Vierge au jardinet, Maître rhénan anonyme, Musée de l'Oeuvre Notre-Dame.jpg. Rama (talk) 11:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Projet de template PD-France

Commons:Bistro#Projet_de_template_PD-France Pour info. --Eusebius (talk) 13:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Besoin de confirmation message à Commons

Bonjour Rama,

En vous remerciant pour votre aide, je vous ai laissé un message concernant le message que vous m'avez suggéré de faire envoyer par l'auteur d'une photo. Pouvez-vous voir ici : User_talk:Vedah_Eulalia ? Merci d'avance, Vedah Eulalia (talk) 09:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Bonjour Rama,

Encore besoin de votre aide ! Je pense avoir tout fait correctement concernant la photo de [François Géré] (sur wikipédia FR). L'auteur, sa femme, doit avoir envoyé le message type d'autorisation auquel vous m'avez référé à l'adresse "permissions", où elle me délégait également le téléversement sur Commons. Je n'en ai pas confirmation, mais je lui ai tout envoyé hier pour qu'elle l'envoie à son tour.

Ce matin, j'ai cru mettre la bonne syntaxe pour afficher cette photo dans l'article correspondant en français, mais la photo ne s'affiche pas. Quel est le problème qui subsiste ? Merci d'avance, Vedah Eulalia (talk) 09:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Plus besoin, j'ai trouvé la faille ! "JPG" est case-sensitive et je l'avais mis en majuscules, alors que sur le Commons c'était en minuscules. Je pense que tout doit être en bonne et due forme maintenant. Vedah Eulalia (talk) 09:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Oui, c'est tout à fait bien. J'ai ajouté le tampon qui indique d'un mail de confirmation est dans les tuyaux. Merci et bravo pour cette image précieuse, et bonne continuation ! Rama (talk) 10:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Encore des renommages

Désolé, mais j'espère que tu n'as rien de mieux à faire au moment de lire ce message :

• File:Straßburger Muenster Ansicht.jpg vers File:Strasbourg Cathedral seen from Place des Tripiers ( nouveau titre plus indiqué )
• File:Hemicycle of Louise Weiss building of the European Parliament, Strasboourg.jpg vers File:Hemicycle of Louise Weiss building of the European Parliament, Strasbourg.jpg ( coquille )

Merci d'avance, ciao--Edelseider (talk) 17:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Voilé qui est fait (à File:Strasbourg Cathedral seen from Place des Tripiers.jpg pour le premier). Bonne continuation ! Rama (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing images

---

Hello, Rama!

Tip: Add categories to your files

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

CategorizationBot (talk) 10:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Image:Crucifix mg 6691.jpg was uncategorized on 1 June 2010 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files of Brittany Suza (brittsuza) from Flickr

I have requested oversight of these images as copyvios and apparent images of an identifiable minor. - Stillwaterising (talk) 15:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I am unable to comment on such matters at the moment. Rama (talk) 22:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Floods in QI

You might be interested in an ongoing discussion regarding QI floods of late, here. Cheers, ianaré (talk) 12:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kodak Ektra img 0790.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI to me.--Jovianeye 02:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Janisjoplin.png

File:Janisjoplin.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

--J Milburn (talk) 21:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Minh Quang Tran img 0855-square.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For the mass revert/deletion of vandalism of 24.22.244.252, the Chilean Mafia hereby gives you this Barnstar. Thank you! --Diego Grez return fire 03:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ship to Gaza by Latuff.gif

I'd suggest that we have no way of knowing what, if any photographs Latuff referred to in creating this work. As Pieter has pointed out, there are numerous photos of the ship. For all we know, he might have been in Turkey to see the ship depart. If File:Ship to Gaza by Latuff.gif is a copy vio, then what about User:Rama/Personalities drawings? Adambro (talk) 07:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I've made my position abundently clear on this respect. If you want to nominate these drawings for DR, by all means do. Rama (talk) 14:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Teilhard-de-Chardin-1.jpg

File:Teilhard-de-Chardin-1.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Ship to Gaza.gif

Hi, I would appreciate an explanation why this photo is out of the project scope while File:Ship to Gaza by Latuff.gif is inside the project scope. Thanks Tomer A. (talk) 09:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Betouart_IMG_0101.JPG

File:Betouart_IMG_0101.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Roger_Trinquier_img_1769.jpg

File:Roger_Trinquier_img_1769.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Raoul_Salan_on_TIME_Magazine,_26_January_1962-cropped.jpg

File:Raoul_Salan_on_TIME_Magazine,_26_January_1962-cropped.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Richard_Perle-2b.jpg

File:Richard_Perle-2b.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Philippe Kieffer portrait.jpg

File:Philippe Kieffer portrait.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

--Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

File:DimitriAmilakhvari.jpg

File:DimitriAmilakhvari.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

--Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Discours-malraux-IMG_0939.jpg

File:Discours-malraux-IMG_0939.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Suzanne Lachelier 2382.jpg

This media may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Suzanne Lachelier 2382.jpg, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work. If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

--Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh well...

{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;" |rowspan="2" valign="middle" | |rowspan="2" | |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar |- |style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" |For trying to implement your own proposal and nominating "the crap of bad taste" to be deleted" I award you with that barnstar.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:50, 12 June 2010 (UTC) |}

I was not sure, if I should give you a barnstar, or hit you with a wet trout. I have no problems with you blocking me, but I believe you should have unblocked me immediately after you were not able to deliver on your proposal in full. Still I've chosen a barnstar because although the block itself and even more so the failing to unblock me was extremely unfair, I respect you for your brave deletion request. I'm more than willing to be unfairly blocked for a weak at the time for every "crap of bad taste" you will be able to delete, but until then I will continue to call the things with their real names.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:50, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Suzanne_Lachelier_2382.jpg

File:Suzanne_Lachelier_2382.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, rama, I guess in your next attempt to implement your proposal you will block me alone simply because there's much less incontinence in doing that to me. After all I gave you a barnstar, while kuiper nominated 8 or so of your files to be deleted . BTW you failed to address the issues I raised in my prior message, and I believe it was wrong of you. --Mbz1 (talk) 23:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe that your guess is incorrect.

I am sorry, but I had not identified anything in your last message that demanded an answer. What is your question? Rama (talk) 23:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

My "guess" was simply a joke and nothing but a joke I am afraid my Russian sense of humor is very different from European's and American's one :)

I have few questions please

Do you still believe your proposal has any chance of being implemented in whole?

Don't you think that after you were not able to deliver on other parts of your proposal, it would have been fair to unblock me automatically (please notice, when I say "other parts of your proposal", I do not mean blocking or unblocking kuiper, I mean your failed attempt to delete the crap, and if you do not believe it warranted an automatic unblock, why not?

Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with your humour, but I am more idealistic than bitter.

The core of my proposal is that administrators who are not involved in Israelo-Palestinian bickering should occasionally take administrative decisions more or less arbitrarly to forcibly cease disruption and provocation on Commons (by blocking people and deleting images, notably). In the last days, I have successfully deleted a provocative file, and the consecutive protests have been promptly answered by another admin; his support for my summary deletion have been enough to quiet the provocator. This proves that my proposal can work.

Yes, I think that it would have been fair to unblock, and I am rather glad that you eventually were. I did not do that myself because 1) I disagree strongly with the unblocking of Kuiper and 2) your block and his are not related anyway:

• I had meant to block him for 24 hours for his insults on a user's talk page, before I remarked his upload of provocative images, something which he does on a regular basis and deliberately, and for which he has been warned before, which made me increase the block to a week. I think that unblocking Kuiper was an error in judgement because it is a failure to account for his recurrent and deliberate provocations, and because doing undermines the authority of the administrative body as a whole. The "spoiled child" behaviour of Kuiper's and of other trolls is in good part due to such apparent undecisiveness of the administrative body as a whole.
• I blocked you a the same time not to balance Kuiper's block, but because of your constant use of the term "antisemitic"; I think that you use the term to qualify things that are either not clearly or clearly not antisemitic, that this is a serious accusation (public displays of antisemitism are a criminal offence in many countries) and that is weakens the struggle against real antisemitism to keep shouting "wolf" all the time. And I'd warned you before too.

In this context, unblocking you would somehow admit a connection between your two blocks; it just happens that I regard both your behaviours as disruptive and inexcusable in regard of the warnings that you both had in the past. And it would somehow condone or acccept the unblocking of Kuiper, which I deem to have been rash and unwise. I also felt that Kuiper was better served than you were, but I was not willing to add an injustice to balance another one. Rama (talk) 01:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for responding my questions. I did not see the file you were able to delete, but I assume it was created by an user on Commons. I doubt very much that you or anybody else for that matter will ever be able to delete any crap by latuff. Am I being a pessimist?
I really have absolutely no problems with kuiper being unblocked few minutes after he was blocked, and me being blocked for 2+ days. In other words kuiper's unblock did not make me feel any worse about my own block. I neither have any problems with you blocking me. You did warn me, and I understand where you were coming from. I would have never called an image antisemitic, if I have any doubt it is. Of course quite a few people do share my opinion on that matter. I know you cannot understand me, and where I am coming from. To understand that one should have lived my life, see what I saw... Anyway... The blocks cannot make me to change my opinion on some things I am afraid, and because I came from soviet union, where there was neither freedom of speech, nor even freedom of thought I'd like to be able to name the things with their real names now. As I said, if you will ever believe my comments to be a cause of any disruptions on Commons, please do block me "with particular harshness" :( I assure you I will not complain, but I am afraid it will not change me either. I guess sooner or later I will end up with an indefinite block :(, and Commons will get saved from me. BTW I was not going to ask for unblock on my last block. I was going to endure all 7 days of punishment, if for nothing else just to support your proposal and you, but then I saw lycaon has done some "work" :( on one of my nominated images, and I just felt I should have taken care of this. That's why I asked to be unblocked. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what your personal history is, and even if I did I would have no right to judge it. I understand that having lived in the Soviet Union must cast a particular light on the benefits of living in a democracy, of being protected by a law-abiding country, and of enjoying freedom of speech. However, we are here on Wikimedia Commons, which is not a society where people have to live. It is a project where people are volunteers, from which they are free to depart, etc. It is not a democracy -- just like most organisation aren't.

You refer to one particular right-wing newspaper from one particular country, which happens to be isolated on the international scene on many aspects of its policies. There is nothing fundamental to distinguish your views on the term "antisemitism" from the views of, say, a pro-governmental blogger from North Korea attempting to comment on US policy using Commons as a plateform. And rest assured that I would repress such Northern Korean attempts.

I do not think that there is any unescapable doom upon you. You are intelligent, your attitude on your talk page has earned my respect -- not only did you graciously accept being blocked, but you did so after complaining of a one-sidedness that you took back, displaying a sense of fairness and a commendable capacity to correct your opinion. Furthermore, you are a very valuable contributor. There would be really no problem at all if you could clearly separate your political interests and your notions of justice from your work on Commons; Commons is a project to collect and offer Free images, nothing more and nothing less. Fighting political struggles here is pointless and only disturbing. There are people whom I cannot imagine living without indulging in petty provocations, and whom I believe will ultimately be banned; I don't think that you need to be one of these, please do us both, and the project, a favour by proving me right on this. Rama (talk) 02:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually w:Jerusalem Post considered to be a reliable source, and certainly not only Jerusalem post, but other very reliable sources (I am just tired to count all of them once again) have the same opinion on the matter, and who, but Jews could really tell what is, and what is not antisemitism? I have never been to Israel, but those cartoons hurt me almost physically. I also have a strong urge to wash my hands after looking at them... I agree with you that Israel is "isolated on the international scene on many aspects of her policies", only in my opinion she should be rather supported. It is not because I hate Palestinians, or cannot understand their sufferings, and they do suffer. Maybe more than most people here I could. I wish there was peace on Middle East almost more than I wish anything else in the world. I just think that both Palestinians and the West look in a wrong direction for a guilty ones. Okay, I will stop right here, and right now because your talk page is not the right place for such debates, and because I believe that one day the History would have her say (I only hope it will not be too late for the world.)

I agree with you that I/P conflict will never be solved on Commons, and I will try to stay out of the issue. Once again thank you for taking your time to respond to me and to explain your opinion to me. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

• Maybe just one more thing. Here's the song about Israel written by w:Bob Dylan. It is a beautiful song, and it says it all. If for nothing else, I hope you'd appreciate the rhymes and the allegories of his great lyrics. Of course Bob Dylan also belongs to "particular" ethnicity... Regards. --Mbz1 (talk) 14:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

These people also said "never trust someone over 30" because people over 30 had known the Second World War and were supposedly unable to think rationally about the Viet-Nam war. Rama (talk) 16:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)