User talk:Damiens.rf

This talk page is not a battle ground

Please, stay cool.

Civility?

I would have hoped that, with an intro on your talk page such as you have, you would maintain a cool head. But subtly-veiled insults like this aren't cool. Nobody likes biting summaries. Seriously. Even one word can be quite hurtful.

Please be sure to be considerate in the future. I know that you may feel exasperated, but treating other editors like trash isn't the answer. Thank you, Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 00:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

As for "WhisperToMe you're completly mistaken in your lack of dedication to the project mission... and If you think this is unreasonable, please go argue with this Wales guy or go contribute to some other project, thank you good bye." - I feel that I am very much dedicated to the project mission. Why not rephrase things like saying "XXX, It's absolutely possible to produce a free image of a dead person: You just talk to some photographer owing a photo (taken preferably before the subject's death) and ask him to release the photo under a free licensing." - That way you cut to the point and are not questioning other people's dedication.

• And it is absolutely possible to ask for free images - I've made many relicensing requests on Flickr - It's that **when should one give up and presume that a free image does not exist?** With many recent figures they already had a free image inserted before they died, or a free image has easily been found.
  • WhisperToMe (talk) 22:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Re:Deletion review

The first step of deletion review is talking to the closing administrator- asking them to reconsider and offering your reasons. Note that deletion review is not just a "second go" at deletion- instead, it is for when a closure has been made incorrectly. As such, you would have to focus on how the primary argument was not responded to- no one offered an explanation of why the image was actually needed, they only discussed the importance of the campaign, and why it was irreplaceable; neither of which featured in the nomination statement. J Milburn (talk) 11:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Murder of Michael Causer

I have undone your removal of Murder of Michael Causer from the Murders category. To me that removal seems completely without merit. Perhaps you could clarify your reasoning? --Law Lord (talk) 19:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The article is already on Category:Murder in England, that is on Category:Murder in the United Kingdom, that is on Category:Murder by country that is on Murder. --Damiens.rf 21:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

SNOW

I restored the image File:New Zealand soldiers in Iraq, March, 2004.jpg. Previously, I deleted the image after J Milburn's nagging because the discussion was pretty clear. Currently, there is no consensus at Wikipedia talk:Files for deletion#No consensus, so we should keep such images on hold until the discussion concludes. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

You should delete it again. Regardless of that RFC, I disagree with the closing this deletion discussion as "no consensus". Please, don't make me go back to what I have already pointed you to in User talk:King of Hearts#Head counting. --Damiens.rf 21:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me repeat this again. What is wrong with waiting? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Wait for what, sir? For the RFC? It is unrelated to your mistakenly closing of that FFD as no consensus. Since you RUSHED and restored the image, we're back to the original argument that you once avoided by deleting the image and opening an rfc.

So, back from were we stopped, you asked me to explain why was File:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg historical, and I did it. Would you delete File:New_Zealand_soldiers_in_Iraq,_March,_2004.jpg now, or you will say it's just as historical? --Damiens.rf 21:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I still hold that there was no consensus; I only deleted it because the RfC back then was quite clear that no consensus defaulted to delete. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

You should keep distance from ffd discussion if you read that as a no-consensus... --Damiens.rf 22:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm personally a little sceptical of the whole process at the moment (and feel some of King's actions a little odd- there have been/are discussions about that) but your nomination looks more than sound. It would appear that the vast majority of arguments in the deletion debate were completely invalid. If the close is upheld at this deletion review, I think that really will be the nail in the coffin of my faith in the FfD process. J Milburn (talk) 22:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Damiens: The speedy tags are not valid. Please don't game the system. The image was orphaned because it was deleted, and so it cannot be deleted because it is orphaned; that would be circular reasoning. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

And why did you ignore the {{di-replaceable fair use}} tag Carnildo added? Do not accuse me of gaming the system, you've done enough mess by now. --Damiens.rf 22:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Since you seem to emphasize "policy" over everything, I invite you to read WP:CSD, which is a policy: "Administrators should take care not to speedy delete articles except in the most obvious cases." This is clearly a controversial issue, and should not be subjected to speedy deletion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy delete? If it wasn't for your lack of competency, this image would have been deleted ages ago. And please stop ignoring every thing I ask you. This is annoying and unrespectful. --Damiens.rf 13:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia.

File:20090120 Oath with Closed Caption.JPG

File:20090120 Oath with Closed Caption.JPG was moved to Commons and therefore speedily deleted at Wikipedia without discussion. Then, commons:File:20090120 Oath with Closed Caption.JPG to see it was deleted at Commons after discussion at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:20090120 Oath with Closed Caption.JPG. I was the photographer. You were the nominator for this discussion. Is it possible that the image might be viable on WP under Fair use. The file had been at use in First 100 days of Barack Obama's presidency as shown by this edit--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you give me an opinion on this matter. I see you have recently editted this page and have been active in the last two days.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't envision a valid fair use rationale since I fail to feel a need in First 100 days of Barack Obama's presidency of an illustration of how he looked like in the bigscreen during his inauguration discourse. If you want, add the information about the closed-caption text not being inline with what the guy said, but there's no need to add an non-free image as a proof or something. --Damiens.rf 15:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)