User talk:Rama/archive 12

Dragoon helmet, not cuirassier one

The name of this file [1] is wrong. This is a Helmet of aFrench Dragoon officer (made of brass, with leopard skin). The cuirassier helmet was made of steel with seal fur. I just wanted to say that... 91.86.99.172 10:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I have renamed the file, thank you very much for your expertise and your vigilence. Rama (talk) 16:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hitler pincushion IMG 1332b.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}}}

Atelier photo septembre 2010

Salut,

Juste une petite remarque, parmi les exposés, je ne vois rien spécifiquement dédié au logiciel et au traitement des images. Est-ce voulu ? Préfères-tu les intégrés dans les exposés existants (ce qui se justifie aussi). En tout cas, cela me semble un point important (je lie régulièrement les posts de blogs de Durova ou de Zil). As-tu contacté Edhral ? Cdlt, VIGNERON * ^discut. 10:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Il y en a caché dans "retouches" et "panorama", mais effectivemnt, ça serait bien de mettre ça plus explicitement; ça serait aussi un très bon sujet d'exposé de faire une revue des logiciels libres existants (passer en revue GIMP, Inkscape, showfoto, enblend, etc.). J'ai failli contacter Edhral mais elle avait déjà vu le post sur le bistro de fr:. Je vais peut-être mettre des liens vers les blogs de durova et Zil, comme lecture conseillée. Merci pour ces excellentes remarques et à bientôt ! Rama (talk) 12:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Bonjour !

J'ai été balancé par Vigneron, je crois. Oui, l'atelier m'intéresse, mais mes dates sont floues. Je regarde attentivement l'évolution.

Merci pour la proposition en tout cas ! Trizek ^Blah 13:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

In case you've missed it

[2] Warm regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. 24 hours. Rama (talk) 18:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Did you block Mbz1 for some particular reason, or was it just because you felt in the mood for doing that? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I blocked her for a particular reason. Rama (talk) 20:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

That's interesting. You have a reason but do not need to say. Apparently, then,wiki-StarChamber justice. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I moved your block

Greetings Rama, I hope this note finds you well. Just a heads up— I have changed the settings on a recent block of yours. I hope you do not find my change or the reasoning I expressed for it on the relevant talk page to be objectionable. If you do not, I do not believe any further action is required on your part. --Gmaxwell (talk) 19:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, I can't really object. I hope that we can work on happier topics next time. Cheers! Rama (talk) 19:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Wrong blocks. I am glad the editor was unblocked.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe here

Hi, Rama, I'd like to ask you to explain me why you have never responded to my request from few days ago? I'm really interested to learn your position about that. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I see you cannot keep your own word, and do not even wish to explain your position. That's fine. You silence confirmed what I have known for quite some time now. Warm regards, and please do not forget to post block message to my talk page, when you will unfairly block me next time.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Seeking advice

Hi. I remember that you are knowledgeable about what can or cannot be in Commons. What do you make of Category:Peugeot SR1. Is it me or is it really possible for an agent in Russia to give an OTRS for Peugeot press images ? I asked deletion for one of them as a test and that failed ? Regards Hektor (talk) 09:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello, the OTRS ticket does check out, and there are valid licences. In this case, I think that we can assume that the person who sent the OTRS ticket knows what he is doing. Cheers! Rama (talk) 10:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

PS: to clarify, it is likely that these images are part of a press kit for which the Russian Peugeot retailer has obtained permission from the people in charge. Rama (talk) 10:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I find that surprising, but if everything is ok... Hektor (talk) 10:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Basically, at this stage, if something isn't OK, the problem is within Peugeot, and we can't do much about it. So wecan as well assume good faith and react later is it turns out to be necessary. Cheers! Rama (talk) 10:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! SIG P220 IMG 3089.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 Close but no cigar. Masking is insufficient (jagged edges) and guns should be cleaned first (lint). Lycaon 10:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC) Uploaded new version with softened edges and cleaned dust, hope it's animprovement. Thank you for the hints in any case. -- Rama 12:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC) Somewhat improved. Lycaon 07:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)  Support Good -- George Chernilevsky 05:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! SIG P210 2nd series IMG 3085.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 Close but no cigar. Masking is insufficient (jagged edges) and guns should be cleaned first (lint). Lycaon 10:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC) Uploaded new version with softened edges and cleaned dust, hope it's animprovement. Thank you for the hints in any case. -- Rama 15:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC) Somewhat improved. Lycaon 07:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)  Support Good -- George Chernilevsky 05:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Clocher de Saint-Etienne du Mont

Salut.
Je ne comprends pas l'expression " a bit on the soft side", peux-tu m'éclairer ? A propos d'éclairage, je crois que tu as raison, le haut du clocher est surexposé, alors qu'une grande partie du reste serait trop ombré si j'y touchais. Le mieux sera donc de reprendre une autre photo un jour moins ensoleillé, ou à une heure moins "agressive". Merci de tes commentaires.--Jebulon (talk) 21:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh pardon, je veux dire "c'est un tout petit peu mou" (genre très très très légèrement flou: juste, on voit que ça n'est pas d'une netteté stellaire). Oui, pour l'éclairage, je pense que la photo est tout à fait correcte vu les conditions ; ce qui manque, c'est quelques nuages pour diffuser un peu la lumière du soleil, et ça, je ne peux pas franchement te reprocher de ne pas l'avoir réglé. Merci pour tes commentaires à toi, et bonne continuation ! Rama (talk) 21:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

OK merci. Tu as raison. ( J'aime bien ta Vierge à l'enfant sur ta page d'accueil).--Jebulon (talk) 09:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Revolver Lefaucheux IMG 3108.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 & Useful... -- Archaeodontosaurus 07:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Support too. Very good -- George Chernilevsky 07:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! FN Model 1910 IMG 3065.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 Good --The High Fin Sperm Whale 03:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Revolver mod 1878 IMG 3100.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 for me --Archaeodontosaurus 19:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! SIG P210 1sr series IMG 3086.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 Good --The High Fin Sperm Whale 15:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Copyright

Hi Rama, I just uploaded [3] which is an svg of a drawing from a US Navy Report from 1946, published as pdf, for example here [4]. Do you see any copyright problems ? With best regards, Alexpl (talk) 15:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

material by agencies of the US government (for instance the US Navy) is in the public domain by law, so there is no problem with your SVG. Congratulations and cheers! Rama (talk) 16:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

THX ! Alexpl (talk) 16:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! SIG Pro IMG 3277.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. Interesting pistol with some polymer detail in construction -- George Chernilevsky 08:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
SIG P210.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Oppose - Location is provided in the description, However image is not geocoded. --Rastaman3000 (talk) - Visit my new user-page! 18:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

•  Info Now geocoded. -- Rama (talk) 22:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Support All criteria met -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Lefaucheux M1858.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Oppose - Location is provided in the description, However image is not geocoded. --Rastaman3000 (talk) - Visit my new user-page! 18:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

•  Info Now geocoded. -- Rama (talk) 22:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Support All criteria met -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
1872 Swiss revolver model 1878.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Oppose - Location is provided in the description, However image is not geocoded. --Rastaman3000 (talk) - Visit my new user-page! 18:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

•  Info Now geocoded. -- Rama (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Support All criteria met -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Smith & Wesson Model 39.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Oppose - Location is provided in the description, However image is not geocoded. --Rastaman3000 (talk) - Visit my new user-page! 18:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

•  Info Now geocoded. -- Rama (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Support All criteria met -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
FN Model 1910.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Oppose - Location is provided in the description, However image is not geocoded. --Rastaman3000 (talk) - Visit my new user-page! 18:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

•  Info Now geocoded. -- Rama (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Support All criteria met -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

A question

I could not understand why this photo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EPFL_Stalingrad_2.jpg has the name: "EPFL_Stalingrad_2.jpg" ? Stalingrad is a very distant place to Switzerland. Dizikaygisiz (talk) 17:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

This square has been nicknamed "Stalingrad square" by students. Rama (talk) 18:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

FP Promotion

File:Julian Assange 2010-front.jpg

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Julian Assange 2010-front.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Julian Assange 2010-front.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 08:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Leica S2 IMG 2920.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 for me great work, very clear, even object was behind glass --J. Lunau 18:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Queen Anne pistol.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support All criteria met. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Pistolet modèle An XIII.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Best in scope. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Cueva_arana.jpeg

Hi Rama!

thanks for looking that up. Could you check who the uploader of that file was? Thanks! Amada44  ^{talk to me} 07:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It was fr:Utilisateur:Achillea. Cheers! Rama (talk) 08:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

great! thxs! Amada44  ^{talk to me} 15:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! SIG 550 IMG 3272-diag.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 Good. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

kuiper's unblock request

Rama, you know I am not a friend of kuiper, and I'd rather he is blocked, but I believe you should not have been the one to decline his unblock request. You involved with him. His unblock request should have been handled by an uninvolved admin. I hope you understand. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Freedom_Tower.svg

File:Freedom_Tower.svg 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!

--sугсго 14:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
SIG 550.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Best in scope. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! New model Army IMG 3544.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 Very good. -- Felix Koenig 15:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Brengarten IMG 3164b.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 good quality --Mbdortmund 19:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Regnier IMG 3218.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 Not extremely sharp, but good enough for QI imo. --Cayambe 17:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Patrol boat P619 mg 6489.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 good picture but should be cropped on the left and butttom --Mbdortmund 12:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)  Comment Agree with Mbdortmund. --Cayambe 15:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)  Comment Good idea, thank you. -- Rama 21:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC) OK --Mbdortmund 22:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pistolet période révolutionnaire Ateliers Nationaux IMG 3200.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}}}

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pistolet officier Fillon IMG 3201.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}}}

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
SIG SG 510.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support All criteria met, best in scope -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Ikar.us (talk) 23:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Mousqueton an IX.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 Good --The High Fin Sperm Whale 01:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Furrer submachine gun IMG 3080.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}}}

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Remington Model 1858.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Best in scope. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vetterli repeating mousqueton-circa 1870.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  Support QI for me --Archaeodontosaurus 14:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Percussion revolver Adams system IMG 3246.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}}}

File source is not properly indicated: File:Louvres-antiquites-egyptiennes-img 2790.jpg

This media may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Louvres-antiquites-egyptiennes-img 2790.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!

Luispihormiguero (talk) 16:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of File:Julian Assange 2010-front.jpg and derivative works

• File:Julian Assange 2010-front.jpg

Seems like these should go through deletion discussion, and not simply be speedy deleted. Please restore them, so they can go through a deletion discussion. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 21:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I find the idea of undeleting for the purpose of a deletion request a bit odd; maybe you want Commons:Undeletion requests? Cheers! Rama (talk) 21:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

How was the deletion request made? -- Cirt (talk) 02:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The author of the images requested their removal in an e-mail to me following a discussion we had to confirm their status (as per Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Julian Assange 2010-front.jpg). Why do you need to know? Rama (talk) 06:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah okay thanks, was not aware of that discussion. No worries! Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 16:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Fass57-diag.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 for me --Archaeodontosaurus 15:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Reynier

Bonjour Rama, Ta nomination en VIC Commons:Valued image candidates/Regnier IMG 3218.JPG a reçu quelques questions et commentaires, pourrais-tu y jeter un œil? Bien cordialement, --Myrabella (talk) 09:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Albite et considérations diverses

• Albite : le reflet bleu : je l’avais laissé exprès, mais manifestement çà choque, je suis ton avis.
• Dans VI Jean Reynier : tout le monde attend que tu modifies le scope pour ton général qui est en attente de promotion...

--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Colt Model 1908 Vest Pocket.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Best in scope. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vevey IMG 2863.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 for me --Archaeodontosaurus 01:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pistolet-IMG 3196-b.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}}}

consider the "debate"?

So the community cannot discuss the FBI image? You are just going to close debate before it even gets started? Why not give people the opportunity to express themselves for couple days and THEN inform them that because you are an admin you can, and are, terminating the discussion in favour of the decision you prefer? You are aware that while an image is under review for delete it is still there and being used such that if the decision is to keep without revision there is no harm done?Bdell555 (talk) 22:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Right...

1) What I favour or not, you have no idea, and it's not your buisness.

2) All the discussions of the community won't change the fact that these files are in the Public Domain. Discuss all you want, but not on a deletion page. The copyright status of these files is a purely technical question, which has one correct answer, which happens to be easy. All the "debates", "discussions" or God knows what shan't vote reality out of existence.

Rama (talk) 22:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I could take a photo of myself sexually abusing a 5 year old and call it public domain yet that doesn't mean Wiki Commons should host it without debate. Your assertion that whether an image is PD or not is determinative is simply false, since policy is more restrictive. Hosting material that is illegal in the state of Florida, for example, is generally against policy. However, all this is secondary to the point that even if you are correct, some deference is normally shown to the community and to consensus by not declaring that there is "one correct answer" which you decide. A Wiki bot was triggered by your apparent action which wrote that a "deletion debate" had occurred. There was no debate, and the reason for that is simply that you did not believe the matter was debatable.Bdell555 (talk) 23:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

re what is "not my business", may I remind you that a core Wiki philosophy is that "anyone can edit" and that this concerns Wiki content?Bdell555 (talk) 23:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

That the State of Florida forbids such or such thing has nothing whatsoever to do with the Public Domain. On Commons, we are concerned about questions to Copyright; not of Trademarks, hate speech, libel, etc.

Regarding the debate, there is not debate to be had. These files are in the Public Domain, period. If you want to piss in the wind, do that on a personal user page, it's tolerated there; but not on deletion requests.

I cannot fathom how you deduce from "anyone can edit" that you have a right to make wild speculatoins and allegations as to my personal opinions or beliefs. Piss off. Rama (talk) 23:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, you are misrepresenting, and more importantly, misapplying, Wiki policy when you insist that if a file is PD, it is kept "period". See this BBC article for an example of how an overly summary decision can be inappropriate. At issue here is your apparent refusal to allow the community to delete this image even if there were an overwhelming and well reasoned consensus in favour of deletion and, no, that's not a "personal" matter, that's a public one. If that refusal is truly "apparent" such that I am engaging in "wild speculation" about your stance on this issue, when are you going to allow debate to reopen? I would admit that it would arguably be "personal" to remind you of WP:CIVIL, but as an apparent admin I trust you are already aware of that policy.Bdell555 (talk) 23:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, if there is "no debate to be had", then how is it that Encyclopedia Britannica had a debate, never mind come to the conclusion to DELETE, as Britannica did? What was stopping you from respectfully disagreeing with the proposal to delete, as opposed to dismissing such such proposals as "pissing in the wind"? You cannot "tolerate" any debate on the matter? The US govt has released millions of images to the public domain, and not only can the creator not have just one of them back, but the creator's request cannot even get serious consideration? How is such an unforgiving stance going to encourage other governments to be equally as generous going forward?Bdell555 (talk) 02:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Commons is not a democracy. Deletion requests like these ones are to discuss whether an image is actually Free or not; that sort of question can at times be complicated; in this case it is not, there is an easy, immutable answer to the question. The question was asked in good faith by someone who was confused on copyright vs trademarks; that is OK but the discussion would be a waste of time.

Now, you come here accusing me of violating policies, making a show of your lack of understanding of the question on which you attack me, demanding discussion for the sake of discussion, and being a walking waste of time.

Editorial policies of Britannica are not our problem; furthermore, the equivalent decisions will be held on Wikipedia, not on Commons (and knowing Wikipedia, they'll probably decline the request of the FBI).

As to why we are being so mean to the poor little FBI:

• In its demands, the FBI as been aggressive, has misquoted the law in bad faith, accused us of crimes which we very clearly did not commit, and attempted to bully us; this is generally not a good way of obtaining sympathy (pretty much like you)
• The US government is forced by law to release its documents into the Public Domain. That law will not change over a minute incident like this one
• The FBI is a large insitution, and we are talking about an official symbol that litters ever DVDs. There is no possible comparison to people having second thought on their privacies. Note that as a Commons oversighter, I should know a bit about the actual cases.
• The argument that our SVG logo could help forging fake FBI IDs is absurd and likely bad faith. Actual police IDs are made of brass, ID number, and various security devices; someone who'd fall for the Wikipedia SVG probably accepts Monopoly banknotes for payment. There's no more concern to have than about somebody cutting out the FBI seal from a DVD.

For conclusion, this is a waste of time, you are a waste of time, and I shan't waste any more time on you. But if you insist on further humiliation, I encourage you to report me on COM:AN/U. Rama (talk) 07:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

"Commons is not a democracy" does not mean that editors should be denied the opportunity to discuss, which is the issue here, or that admins have no obligation to try to determine what the community consensus is on whether to delete or not before closing a delete discussion. Wikipedia is displaying a low resolution image that few editors would find problematic. It is the Commons that is hosting a 2000 px image and there is no conceivable circumstance under which Wikipedia could need an image at that resolution. If you are applying policy correctly then why do you not cite it? You could avoid a lot of "time wasting" if the community supported your actions, and that support would be a lot more forthcoming if you cited commonly recognized principles. If a 2000 px SVG is really so obviously "Free", where is the government website where I can download it directly as opposed to having to extract it from a PDF? More importantly, please link to the Wiki policy that says that deletion discussions may only address the issue of "whether an image is actually Free or not" such that deletion on other grounds is beyond discussion. Please also link to the Wiki policy that says that the expressed wishes of an image creator or original owner are not to be considered. If taking the time to find, read, and link to Wikpedia policy is a "waste of time" in your view then, yes, I do think it is an issue for COM:AN/U since BOTH applying policy conscientiously AND appearing to do so are taken to be serious responsibilities by those admins who enjoy strong community support and who make Wiki a more effective and less contentious environment. Those sorts of admins do not dismiss non-vandalizing editors as "walking waste[s] of time." Are your threats to "humiliate" editors intended to intimidate them against holding you accountable for the use of your admin powers? No? Then what, exactly, do you hope to gain by such "humiliation"?Bdell555 (talk) 17:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Portrait de Louis XIV (pour changer du FBI...)

Bonjour Rama,

Il semble y avoir en effet un pb de droits pour cette reproduction (voir [5]). Dommage.

N'hésite pas à éliminer mes photos si elles font double emploi, je n'ai ni ton talent ni ton matériel. J'avais envisagé de venir à l'atelier-photo de septembre, mais je crois qu'il n'y aura pas vraiment de débutants en réalité, et il y a bien d'autres choses à faire, davantage dans mes cordes :-)

Bien cordialement, Ji-Elle (talk) 12:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Bonjour,

Si si, il y aura des débutants, et puis tu n'es pas franchement sans expérience de toute manière. En tout cas tout le monde est bienvenu, le format est choisi pour ça.

Merci, et peut-être à bientôt ! Rama (talk) 12:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Peabody rifle model 1867.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 For me --Archaeodontosaurus 05:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Jean-Louis-Ébénézer Reynier.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment I suggest Jean Louis Ébenezel Reynier for scope ! --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment As far as I know, the Commons category and the fr:WP article title seem mispelled. Shouldn't it be "Jean-Louis-Ébenézer Reynier"? Some références : [6], [7], [8], [9]. --Myrabella (talk) 09:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
•  Request : However, please link to the relevant Commons gallery or category when it exists, rather than to a WP article, in order to ease the review (=> see Commons:Valued image scope#Links in the scope), and please precise the scope by giving the complete name of this general. --Myrabella (talk) 09:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

  Thank you for the advice. I have modified the scope accordingly. Rama (talk) 09:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

•  Info I took the liberty of slightly amending the new scope ("Ébénézer" rather than "Ébenezel", according to the sources previously quoted + 1 + 2) and putting the réference to the en:WP article in the reason parameter instead of scope. --Myrabella (talk) 10:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

•  Comment I am puzzled by the name "Regnier" we can read in the bottom of the portrait and in the file name. --Myrabella (talk) 09:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

  This is an alternative spelling of his name; in this time, you would write "Lafayette" or "La Fayette", things like "tremblés tyrans", etc. Rama (talk) 09:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

•  Comment I suggest to rename the file however. Filename is a part of image documentation, and the present filename with "Regnier" can be misleading for Commons users and in external search. --Myrabella (talk) 10:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

•  Support Best in scope --~~— Preceding unsigned comment added by Archaeodontosaurus (talk • contribs) 2010-08-04T15:28:02 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

*Bruit d'index qui tape doucement sur ton épaule*

Bonjour, tu veux bien jeter un coup d'oeil ici, ici et ici ? Désolé pour l'embarras éventuel, mais ça en vaut tout de même bien la peine ! Merci beaucoup et d'avance, --Edelseider (talk) 19:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Voilà, j'ai commandé le renommage, un bot va passer pour l'effectuer. Bonne continuation et bravo pour tes fructueuses pérégrinations. Rama (talk) 19:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Merci, et pour les pérégrinations, ce n'est pas fini, tant mieux. J'ai comme l'impression que grâce à Nanard68, Ji-Elle, toi, Badener ( ex-Brian67 ), Rauenstein, Hermann Luyken, Rh-67, MOSSOT, Torsade de Pointes, Tangopaso, Absolutecars, Gargolla (ex-Demonwhip ), Poudou99, Eole99, Wernain S., Florival fr, Lybil, Sanseiya, Flominator, Cham, Denis.helfer, ComputerHotline (ex-Thomas Bresson ), Olevy, Jeriby, Monsieur Fou, GDelhey, Berthold Werner, Mattis, Monsoleiiil, TobiasKlaus, HNH, Raboe001, Kyah117, ODLG et moi-même, l'Alsace est en bonne voie d'être la région de France la mieux représentée dans quasiment toutes les catégories. On est à la limite de la disproportion ! Bien à toi, --Edelseider (talk) 19:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Block of Mbz1

Hi Rama, I am surprised to see that you apparently blocked Mbz1 for this comment where Mbz1 qualifies a set of cartoons as anti-semitic. I do not see any behaviour here that can be characterized as intimidating behaviour/harassment. Could you please explain your reasons for the block and/or reconsider it? Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 07:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I have updated the reason yesterday.

As for the block itself, I think that Mbz1's attack against Liftarn here is simply not tolerable; my judgement is well settled on that point, I believe that anybody making such statements should be blocked immediately, be it only to prevent them from spiralling further down. Rama (talk) 07:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment

I consider your block of Mbz1 completely unjustified based on the rationale you have given. Stating that cartoon are anti semitic is not a blockable offence. I do hope you will give this some thought --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I look forward to you blocking me for my comment. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

1) I have blocked people in the past for their provocative behaviour rather than for "blockable offences", and I will do it again everytime somebody play clever and tries to game the system to poison the project

2) Stating that these cartoons are antisemitic is a blockable offence.

3) Implying that Liftarn "likes" these "dirty antisemitic" cartoons is a blockable offence, major league.

4) Saying things like "I look forward to you blocking me for my comment" like you did constitute a childish provocation.

Rama (talk) 08:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Then you really should block me given your item 2. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

You're wasting my time. Stop your WP:POINT and grow up. Rama (talk) 11:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but you are being inconsistent Rama. I agree that the cartoons are anti semitic (I fail to understand why anyone would not think that). Sadly your comments on my "growing up" I find fairly offensive. You are an admin here, your actions and behaviour are not above discussion/scrutiny - please do not behave as though that were not the case. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Where and when did I ever act as if my actions were not above discussion or scrutiny? Rama (talk) 12:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid that telling me to grow up when I question your actions is not what I expect from a fellow Commons admin. It saddens me that I have found someone like that here. I'll continue my thoughts elsewhere now. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Rama, I believe you should apologize to Herby for what you said. It was highly uncivil, and absolutely unwarranted personal attack. You may do with me as you wish, but Herby is a different story, Rama. If you have any decency left, please apologize. --Mbz1 (talk) 15:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Admin noticeboard

Kindly note there is a complaint about a block you made at COM:AN#Banished_for_live. Stifle (talk) 10:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I am aware of that. I have deleted the user's page as he requests. If you want to review the block, I suggest you ask French-speaking people to do that. Rama (talk) 11:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

In case you haven't seen already: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Desysop of Rama. --Túrelio (talk) 14:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

This is wrong, user Hcrepin is absolutely not erased, please stop this harrassment and remove ANY reference of your despostism on me. I don't understand, according to the fact that when I use the word "incompetent" it is readed as an insult. It is an insult when the facts demonstrate opposite. Here, you demonstrate again your limits and tyrannic attitude.

Officer carbin-Reymond-circa 1780

Je défends ta carabine peux-tu venir confirmer (ou infirmer mon impression)sur QI...--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Officer carbin-Reymond-circa 1780.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}}}

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Sig Pro semi-automatic pistol.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Best in scope. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
•  Temporary opp Please switch to a more acceptable scope formatting, such as (for instance) "SIG Pro (SIG Sauer Pro series)". --Eusebius (talk) 16:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
• Done (?) Rama (talk) 18:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The part between parentheses (like the rest of the scope) should not refer directly to wikimedia organization (article, category, etc). Rather, it should be either a subscope (probably unsuitable here, but I don't know), or some kind of precision (like a geographic precision, a city or a country). Here I guess it is intended to provide a bit of context for the name of the gun? Actually, would you care to explain what kind of refinement you intended to provide with the second link (between parentheses)? --Eusebius (talk) 18:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I might have misunderstood. To me, "scope" is "what the photograph is about", and since it's not a given that everybody knows all about it (I certainly do not), I link to the Wikipedia article. I understand that linking to the Commons category is convenient, but I'd have though the Wikipedia article was relevant. Rama (talk) 20:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not expecting everybody to know everything about VI habits, don't worry. Maybe you want to have a look at this guideline and propose another formatting? --Eusebius (talk) 20:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, the link to the en: article really had to go, then. Thank you. Rama (talk) 23:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

OK. Opposition removed. Maybe you want to consider "Sig Pro pistol" as well, in order to make the scope more immediately understandable. --Eusebius (talk) 04:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:49, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Armure savoyarde IMG 3808.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 nice --Mbdortmund 08:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Savoyard armour IMG 3805.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 very good--Jebulon 21:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Evstafiev-bosnia-sarajevo-serbs-toast.jpg

File:Evstafiev-bosnia-sarajevo-serbs-toast.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!

Elryacko (talk) 18:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Armure savoyarde IMG 3809.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 very good --Mbdortmund 14:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Corsèque 23.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 good , would be nice to know something about the length --Mbdortmund 22:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC) About 2.75 metres from the tip of the blade to the end of the shaft. Rama 00:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Minolta DImage 1500

Rama,

I see that you posted some pictures of a Minolta DImage 1500 some time ago. By any chance, would you have one? If so, I would like to buy it.

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! The mad woman-Theodore Gericault-MBA Lyon B825-IMG 0477.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}}}

A...

A.

A.(bis)

Quality Image Promotion

File:Graffiti-IMG 5792.jpg

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Graffiti-IMG 5792.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}}}

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Canon-IMG 1779-white.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}}}

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Canon-IMG 1784-white.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}}}

Sig-pro-SP2022-p1030058.jpg

The photo you have authored titled Sig-pro-SP2022-p1030058.jpg has an incorrect description. The photo not of a Sig SP2022. Note that an SP2022 does not have a take-down lever, but has an extended slide stop that doubles as a takedown pin. Your photo clearly shows a separate slide stop and takedown lever. The photo appears to be of a Sig Sauer P226.

Image

Hi,

Please could you contact me (instructor@raynerslanetkd.com) regarding one of your images: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EdoJapaneseArquebuse.jpg

many thanks,

Stuart Anslow

Picture from the Rhône

Dear Rama,

I am Elisa and I work at the EPFL (École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Suisse) and I would like to know who took the picture File:Leman_img_0573.jpg and if it was really taken the 2th June 2007. Thanks a lot

Please contact me at: [elisa.bruquepozas@epfl.ch]

Best Wishes

I want to talk to improve my ability to contribute on wiki

Hi ...... where r u from?

File:Salginatobel Bridge mg 4079.jpg

Dear Rama,

the chair 'Entwerfen und Baugestaltung' at the Technical University in Darmstadt (Germany) of Prof. Johann Eisele would like to use for a publication with a publisher (2.000 copies and optional another 2.000 copies) your image of the Salginatobel bridge (File:Salginatobel Bridge mg 4079.jpg). The imagesize is approximatley around 20 x 20 centimetres. In the image index we would publish you by the following indication: Rama, Wikimedia Commons,lizenziert unter Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 France, URL: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Salginatobel_Bridge_mg_4079.jpg

Therefor I would like to get your permission. Please contact me via email: btrautmann@eub.tu-darmstadt.de

Thank you

Best regards

Benjamin Trautmann

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Axel Arnbak-IMG 9036.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}}}

Copyright request

Dear Rama,

First of all, I just wanted to say thank you for your work in making pictures available on Wikimedia Commons.

I would like to use one of your photos in a publication I am working on at the moment, and since it will be produced by a charity organization my royalties are not large (and would quickly be swallowed up if I had to pay for images).

My publisher, however, has requested that I confirm with you that you are willing to give me permission to use the following:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Zakkur_Stele_0154.jpg

Are you fine with this? Could you please contact me at achalmers@adelaide.tabor.edu.au

Once again, thanks for your work and I look forward to hearing back from you.

All the best,

Dr Aaron Chalmers

File:Robespierre IMG 2303.jpg

Dear Rama,

I'm working for a french historical revue. For a an article on Robespierre I would like to use your photo of the bust of him by Deseine taken at Château de Vizille. Could you contact me soon at : jsuarezsophiapublications.fr ? I wish you a merry christmas.

Trying to contact Rama

Rama-

I would like to use a modified version of your photograph "Japanese Arrowheads of Various Functions" in my unpublished Master's thesis from the University of Nevada, Reno. I have cited you based on the license agreement. Can you please provide me with a year the photograph was taken or uploaded to add to my references, and perhaps a first and last name so that the citation meets the requirements of my University? Thank you. Email is the best way to contact me. Please respond to mrlenzi@hotmail.com.

-Mike Lenzi Master's Student Anthropology Department University of Nevada, Reno mrlenzi@hotmail.com

Reproduction of photography

Hello,

I am working in Hachette FLE a french publishing house that publish french textbooks and workbooks. We are working on a new workbook and would like to use two of your photos that you have taken of the band Moriarty. These photos would be printed in the workbook and an activity around the band would be made so learners can identify the singers.

Here is my email adress : edarty@hachette-livre.fr

Could you please respond on that adress so I can send you the images I am talking about and explain to you in details our projet?

Kind regards,

Elodie Darty Marketing Assistant Hachette FLE — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.81.224.200 (talk) 14:52, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Camerone

I don't saw so far a complete image of the hacienda,do you?(with at least one floor) Regards — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 79.118.93.252 (talk) 15:11, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Camerone

I didn't saw so far a complete image of the hacienda,do you?(with at least one floor) Regards — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 79.118.93.252 (talk) 15:18, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

V

You have a vast knowledge, How familiar are you with this? https://books.google.com/books?id=ncs2sJ2b_ccC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vv The Healer (talk • contribs) 13:09, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Rama. Check your email—you've got mail! You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template. — ~~~~

Use your CPR drawings for leaflets for school children

I would like your permission to use your CPR drawings for leaflets for school and university students Would you allow that? Please reply to me at drpranilspace@gamil.com as soon as possible.

Permission

Hi - I would love to use your image here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NeXT_Computer of your NeXTSTEP computer for a public presentation.

I would love express permission directly from you on the usage.

Please contact me as soon as possible at carolyna@fb.com.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lynnabella (talk • contribs)

Information utilisation image pour manuel d'Histoire Géographie

Bonjour Rama, Je suis infographiste pour la maison d'éditions Docéo. Je tenais à vous informer que je pensais utiliser votre photo : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prise_de_la_Bastille#/media/Fichier:Arrestation_du_gouverneur_de_la_Bastille_IMG_2247.JPG pour la couverture d'un manuel d'Histoire Géographie EMC CAP.

J'indiquerais dans les crédits photos votre condition de licence : "Photographie de Rama, Wikimedia Commons, Cc-by-sa-2.0-fr" Je pourrais être amené à modifier votre photo. Vous pouvez me contacter ici contact.doceo@gmail.com

Cordialement,

Michaël SANCHEZ Docéo Éditions

Utilisation de votre photo

Bonjour,

Conformément à votre demande, je vous informe que je désire utiliser votre photo "Gabier sur le perroquet du Recouvrance"que j'ai trouvée dans Wikipédia pour illustrer un article sur la voile du perroquet.

Votre photo illustre le nom du "Perroquet" que j'ai choisi pour baptiser un appartement que je loue en saisonnier. Il est situé à Saint Valery-sur-Somme, sur l'emplacement de l'ancien chantier naval.

Je vous remercie pour l'utilisation gratuite de cette photo que vous autorisez et suis à votre disposition si vous voulez plus de précisions.

Cordialement, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Le Perroquet de St Val (talk • contribs) 17:00, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Book cover

Hello Rama,

We would like to use your picture of a Summerian foundation nail, from le Musée des Beaux Arts de Lyon, to illustrate an eBook we're about to sell.

We provided minimal credit on the front of the cover : "cc cover by Rama", and we give appropriate credit + a link to the wikimedia common file page, on the eshop page. "Photograph by Rama, Wikimedia Commons, Cc-by-sa-2.0-fr"

If you wish to oppose this use or just discuss with us (we'd love to send you a version of the book), please drop us a line at contact@funnyorphi.com

Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 188.146.224.245 (talk) 12:58, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Personally identifiable information

Hi Rama,

Thanks for the heads-up regarding the personally identifiable information. You are right, I didn't take into account that it could be against the Wikipedia policy. From now on I will make sure to be more diligent when it comes to carefully checking the type of certificates that I upload.

Best wishes,

O.M. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oleg Morgan (talk • contribs) 08:07, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Penwas

Penis, penwas? — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 103.150.210.89 (talk) 03:41, 17 November 2021 (UTC)