User talk:Rama/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

A hand

Hi there, I was wondering if you could help me out with something. The usually reliable (on facts if not politics) William James has gotten himself confused in his account of the Battle of Grand Port and lists Francis-Désiré Breton as captain of both French frigate Manche (1803) and French frigate Astrée (1809). Are you able to tell me which one is correct and who the missing officer was? I'm working on a new version of the article at User:Jackyd101/Workbox2 and any other information (captain of Entreprenant or the full name of Morice on Victor for example) would be very helpful. Regards --Jackyd101 (talk) 00:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I will try to see whether I can find something; unfortunately, Hamelin's squadron is described in fewer details than Duperré's. Also, to the defence of James, the turnaround in command was rather high, between the sick, wounded or promoted officers, and the prizes to man, so it is not always easy to keep track of everything. I look forwards to seeing what you will make out of Grand Port, seeing the sort of articles you produce out of much smaller actions. Cheers! Rama (talk) 08:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, François-Désiré Breton captained Manche, but (strangely) this ship is not listed in the otherwise excellent Dictionnaire, so I have but sparse information about her.

Astrée seems to have been led by René Constant Le Marant de Kerdaniel (who later rose to admiral) [1]. Cheers! Rama (talk) 21:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Entreprenant is an interesting ship: she was designed by Bouvet (Pierre François Étienne Bouvet de Maisonneuve) from observation of coastal Indian ships. It is not clear who captained her after Bouvet was promoted to Minerve.

I do not have more information about lieutenant Morice readily available, but I'll let you know if this happens.

Incidentally, did you know that Alexandre Dumas had written an account of the Battle of Grand Port? It is called Lions et léopards . It is... how shall I say... rich in adverbs and adjectives. Rama (talk) 22:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou, that is all fascinating and very helpful. If anything else crops up I'd be interested to hear it and I'm rather regretting learning Spanish instead of French now I see the Dumas piece!--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I have dropped a message on the French naval Village Pump. Some of these chaps have impressive documentation, maybe they will come up with something. I have had Entreprenant in my todo-list for a while; she is much less significant than other Entreprenant (a typical name for a ship of the line), but she is lots of fun.

I could try to translate the text by Dumas, after all it is in the public domain. I doubt it's very accurate, though. Cheers! Rama (talk) 23:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Rled44, I have had confirmation for Pierre Bouvet commanding Entreprenant, and for Le Maran on Astrée ; the good news is that we have the first name of lieutenant Morice: Nicolas ; and the names of the commanders of Manche: Dominique Roquebert and later one Jean Dornaldeguy (or Dornal de Guy, the spelling varies).

I just noticed an interesting list of French officers at [2]. Rama (talk) 10:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all you help! I have finished construction of the article and it is now ready at Battle of Grand Port. Let me know if there are any problems, questions or comments. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations, a fascinating reading, as always. I think that I have a couple more details from Bouvet's and Duperré's biographies that I might be able to contribute. Thank you and cheers! Rama (talk) 08:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou for your contributions, very helpful.--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I was more thinking of a disagreement between Bouvet and Duperré about how to fight; I recall Duperré willing to burn his frigates and fight on foot, which Bouvet opposed, but I need to source this.

Also, I'd like to draw a map of the action, but I cannot find documentation detailed enough for that. Rama (talk) 10:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Dessin du Komet

Salut Rama, je me demandais si tu étais dispo pour refaire ce dessin en libre? Ca concerne l'article du bateau +l'article que je t'indiquais ci-dessusfr:Attaques allemandes sur Nauru. J'ai trouvé une image mais je crois qu'un schéma serait plus intéressant. Cordialement--Kimdime69 (talk) 14:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Je pense que je peux le faire, mais je ne peux pas te donner de délai ferme pour quand ça sera fait. Bonne continuation ! Rama (talk) 00:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

OK ca marche--Kimdime69 (talk) 01:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

ça

J'ai fait ça; pour mieux, il faudrait des meilleures photos que ce que j'ai pu trouver sur Internet. Bonne continuation et bravo pour ton article ! Rama (talk) 18:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

He bien pour quelqu'un qui ne peut pas donner de dead line tu vas vite! Ci-joint quelques liens ci ca peut t'aider : [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] Je me demendais si au lieu de la première vue avec les armements cachés tu ne pouvais pas dessiner le bateau vu du dessus? Enfin c'est déjà très vien comme ca merci.--Kimdime69 (talk) 20:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

C'est la photo que j'ai utilisée :p

Je n'ai rien contre une vue de dessus, mais il faudrait que j'invente complètement, ça n'a pas vraiment de sens dans ces conditions. Déjà, l'armement, c'est limite... Mais si on arrive à déterrer plus de documentation, il est toujours possible de reprendre le dessin. Rama (talk) 20:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Ce n'est pas possible de la faire avec ca [8]? (en bas de page) Sinon c'est pas grave;)--Kimdime69 (talk) 20:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, je n'avais pas vu tout la page. Excellent, ça va être bien meilleur. Rama (talk) 20:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Voilà, je crois que c'est un peu mieux. Rama (talk) 22:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Super, merci!--Kimdime69 (talk) 23:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Re: Image of penetrative position, pt. 2

Thanks Rama, looks good! I have added it to List of sex positions. However, I think the filename, "Penetrative_position.jpg", is a bit too general, as there are many images on wp depicting a penetrative position. Is it possible to change it, or do you have to re-upload it? Cheers, Face 17:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Someone should re-upload it and tag the original one as speedy. Sorry, I could not think of a proper name at the time. Cheers! Rama (talk) 19:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Found out a better way. Does "Anal_missionary.jpg" sounds good to you? Cheers, Face 13:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism of article Pescadores Campaign

Dear Rama,

I wonder whether you would consider making one of your masterly administrative interventions to block persistent vandalism to the article Pescadores Campaign, written mainly by myself. The article has fallen into the hands of User:Gumuhua, an extreme Taiwanese nationalist, who is using it to push his view that all occurrences of the name Pescadores should be replaced with the Chinese term Penghu. There is an ongoing debate on this subject underway at this moment, to which I have contributed my own views, but despite warnings from several contributors User:Gumuhua has jumped the gun and is unilaterally making widespread changes to any article he can find that refers to the Pescadores. In the case of the article Pescadores Campaign, he has not only replaced Pescadores with Penghu, adding clumsy glosses to justify this change, but has also removed all Wade Giles and replaced it with pinyin (my practice for Taiwanese names has been to give the name first in Wade Giles, then in pinyin and Chinese characters in brackets afterwards). Finally, and most bizarrely, he has removed the initial capital letters from names of nationalities, so that French, Chinese and British become french, chinese and british. Is this the latest politically-correct fashion, or a mere fad of his own?

I have protested strongly to him, and having received no response have reverted the article to its previous state. He has counter-reverted, and so have I. I think this issue now needs to be dealt with by an administrator before it gets completely out of hand.

Djwilms (talk) 01:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to respond late,

I do not think that it would be very appropriate for me to intervene with my "admin hat" here. But as a fellow editor, my opinion is that this being the English Wikipedia terms should be given in English first as to minimise the surprise of the reader. In this perspective, I find it normal that the term "Glorious First of June" be used to name what I know as Combat de Prairial, and which should in all rigour be called "Third Battle of Ushant" to be perfectly neutral. Also in general, the more information, the better, so I second you about Chinese characters. As for the capitals, I am not native, but I do think that they should be these in this case. These are merely my opinions as editor, but if a consensus of two with respect to one makes any sense, it makes it so.

Merry Christmas and cheers! Rama (talk) 14:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear Rama,

Thanks for your response, and sorry I didn't get back to you earlier, but I have been away from my computer over Christmas and New Year. The issue has now blown over, as these things often do. The Wikipedia community has voted in its wisdom to rename the Pescadores Islands Penghu (their Chinese name), thereby sidestepping the United Nations and anyone else who has jurisdiction over this sort of thing; but has also agreed that my article, being historical, should remain 'Pescadores Campaign'. That's all I'm bothered about, so Penghu can come into existence for other purposes with my best wishes.

I am also now in an amicable dialogue with User:Gumuhua over things Taiwanese, and we have sorted out our disagreement over the article Pescadores Campaign. He is now aware of the Wikipedia policy that encourages Wade Giles for historical events before 1910 and the conventions for the capitalisation of proper names in English. I am now hoping that he can supply me with the Chinese characters for two Chinese villages in the Pescadores that featured in the 1885 campaign. Their names, recorded by the French as Amo and Kisambo, do not appear on any Chinese or Japanese map of the islands I have been able to consult. This is one of these occasions where local knowledge (though nobody on the Pescadores could tell me the answer when I went there a couple of years ago to drop a tear on Admiral Courbet's memorial) might be able to contribute to international scholarship ...

Best wishes for 2009,

Djwilms (talk) 08:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Image problem

Hi, at the FAC for the Action of 13 January 1797 a user has requested more information on File:Jean-Baptiste Raymond de Lacrosse.jpg, suggesting that it might had been recently created and thus not in the public domain. I am certain it is not recently drawn but I cannot prove it without knowing who drew it or when it was published can you help at all?--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello,

I do not know who could have draw this, but it does seem ancient. I know one contemporary person who draws similar portraits to illustrate history books, and the difference shows quite clearly. Maybe the safest course of action would be to contact the author of the web site and inquire.

I have finally managed to draw a sketch of the battle of Grand Port, at File:Battle of Grand Port.svg. I would not advise using it for navigation in these waters, lest one would like to share the fate of poor Sirius, but it gives an idea, I think.

Merry Christmas and cheers! Rama (talk) 14:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, I'll get on that. That map is incredible, amazing work, well done and thankyou. On a related note, I am now coming to the end of the Mauritius campaign, with the articles on the Invasion of Ile de France and the subsequent Action of 20 May 1811 (which I saw that you have been working on). I was wondering if you had any informationon the following redlinks: Edmé-Martin Vandermaesen (Decaen's second in command on Ile de France) and François Roquebert, Jacques Saint-Cricq and Jean-François Lemaresquier from the action off Madagascar. I'm working my way through the British officers and ships involved. Thanks and Meryy Christmas.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if you have the time (not right away, I'm aware its Christmas!) would you be able to create articles for a number of French ships? These would be the frigates Clorinde (Captured in 1803?), Psyché (Captured in 1805), Piémontaise (captured in 1808) and Niémen (captured in 1809). If you are able I would be very greatful, my sources are not particularly helpful on these ships. Obviously there is no rush, just when and if you are able. Merry Christmas.--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The ships should not be problems. As for the officers, Saint-Cricq might be problematic, but I think that I can find pointers to the others. Merry Christmas and cheers! Rama (talk) 11:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm just about to embark on the final individual action of the Mauritius campaign (although I still have to finish the article on the campaign as a whole). This article is Action of 20 May 1811, which you created. Although I think it is very good, I hope you won't mind if I copy it into my userspace to work on as I did with Battle of Grand Port and others. Incidentally, I was wondering if I could add the French frigate Chiffone (captured in 1801) to the list I gave you above? When you get round to them (and there is still no rush), can you let me know when you create the above articles just so i can keep track and maintain all the links? Thanks, hope you had a great holiday and Happy New Year.--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I look forwards very much to seeing your improvements to the article, as always. I might start doing a few of the ships this evening, and also perhaps contribute a few details to the Battle of Grand Port from Roger Lepelley's La Fin d'un Empire - Les derniers Jours de L'Isle De France et de L'Isle Bonaparte 1809-1810. Cheers and happy new year! Rama (talk) 08:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I've been approached by a French editor wanting to help with the articles on the Mauritius campaign. As his english is not good enough to edit on the English wikipedia to the required standard, he has begun adding information to the talk pages for me to add, such as at Talk:Raid on Saint-Paul. At that page, he has given information about two notable French people involved in the battle about whom I have not heard before. They have links on the French wikipedia but not on the English (as does the author of the book he quotes) - could you tell me who they are and if/when you are able cn articles be created for them? As before, no rush and if you can't then don't worry about it. Regards.--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

First, I have been able to identify all the frigates you mentioned above and confirm that I have at least minimum information about each; I have created articles for two of them, more frigate and officers to come -- as time permits, but sooner or later they will come.

I have translated the articles at Jean-Joseph Patu de Rosemont and Nicole Robinet de La Serve. I'll try to see whether I can also confirm something with Lepelley's book.

Do not hesitate to ask if I can contribute to help, it is always a pleasure to bring whatever small help I can provide. Cheers! Rama (talk) 22:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

(deindent) Thankyou very much. I's glad I'm not imposing on you and I appreciate your assistance very much. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, thankyou very much. A great job.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

French Navy template

Hi, I would like to alter the French Navy template you created and turn it into a more compact "navbox", I left a message on the talk page of the template but I thought I'd also drop a message here as you might not be "watching" the template and I would like to get your opinion. See Template talk:French Navy Equendil Talk 20:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

something like Template:French Navy navbox and Template:French Navy infobox? Rama (talk) 22:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:MCoG title.jpg)

You've uploaded File:MCoG title.jpg, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 01:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Help!

Please see this discussion Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Final_Fantasy_Legend_name_translation_woes.2C_mk._II

There is an ongoing issue with Kung Fu Man over an edit dispute which is getting out of hand, and I'm fairly certain the user is relying on sockpuppets to make revisions to the article. Check the revision history yourself to verify this. Also, I've been receiving harassing comments and threats from this user and am not sure where to turn for help. Please get involved and try to act as the voice of reason. Thank you. 74.242.123.2 (talk) 01:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Waterman Sérénité

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Waterman Sérénité, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Non-notable pens

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Oo7565 (talk) 21:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

La Question

Could you please add inline references to the rest of this article? I'd love to propose it for Wikipedia:Did you know?. Let me know once you've done so (within 5 days to meet the DYK guidelines) and I'll be happy to follow through on my promise. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your interest. I'll try to do it and I'll let you know. Thank you again! Rama (talk) 12:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Ariane Sherine

Hi,

I just thought you might like to know that I recently questioned a change you made. Yaris678 (talk) 21:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

French ship image

Hi Rama, Could you let me know anything about the source of File:Provence-3.jpg which you uploaded a couple of years ago? I can track down mentions of the original US Navy recognition guide on the internet - but can you let me know where you took the image from? The reason I'm asking is because the image is used in Dreadnought, which is shortly going up as a featured article candidate, and people are very picky about image licensing on the FAC page these days. Many thanks, The Land (talk) 20:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

I took the image directly from a copy of the US Navy recognition guide in question. Cheers! Rama (talk) 10:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

SS badges

Hi. I've seen you changed pictures of Ranks and insignia of the Schutzstaffel, but it seems to me, that inscription SS on right collar badge on your pictures has wrong direction. See for example File:Bundesarchiv Bild 101III-Zschaeckel-159-08, Fritz Rentrop.jpg. Cheers. Pibwl ←« 18:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, wouldn't you draw Bougainville class aviso in a free time? :-) It is one of my favourite little-known ships, and I've written quite a big article on the Polish Wiki. Pibwl ←« 18:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The wrong direction? You mean the Sig should be rotated a bit, or is it something else?

Ah, the Bougainville type, of Koh Chang fame. I'll see what I can find on them. Cheers! Rama (talk) 10:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Bougainville class sloop.svg Rama (talk) 17:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Merci :-) Yep, SS rotated a bit - see former drawings and photos. Pibwl ←« 22:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:International Brigades flags2.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:International Brigades flags2.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 16:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:International Brigades flags1.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:International Brigades flags1.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 16:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Ernst Heinrich Landrock

I have nominated Ernst Heinrich Landrock, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ernst Heinrich Landrock. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Oo7565 (talk) 21:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

More names?

Hi, I don't know if you are still working on the list above, but I have a couple of new names for you if you are able to handle it. Firstly, there are red links for the ships Thétis (captured 1808) and Amphitrite (scuttled 1809) and the officers Jacques Pinsum (killed 1808) and Jean Dupotet (captured 1809). Do you think you could add these to the list above at some point soon?--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

I will try to do something for the frigates, but the officers will be more difficult, I am afraid. I will try to see whether I can scrap something from our friends from fr:. Cheers! Rama (talk) 22:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou very much.--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the work so far, much appreciated. I have just completed Invasion of Martinique (1809) and will soon finish an article on the capture of Haupoult in April 1809. I will also be putting together articles on the capture of Junon and Topaze in related operations and then in the invasion of Guadeloupe. Will you be able to help with some links for these? (I'll be working on them over the next month or so, there are a lot of British ships and officers to put together as well). Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

We have an article about Hautpoult; Junon is here, and Topaze there. Thétis is now of the top of my todo list. Cheers! Rama (talk) 08:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I'd seen most of those, but one or two were new to me. There are some other French ships that were involved in the above actions that I haven't seen: the ships of the line Courageux and Polonais and the frigates Furieuse and Félicité. Is there any way you can put these together for me at some point, as well as Commodore Troude who commanded the relief attempt (again, I don't want to impose, let me know if I'm asking too much). Thanks, --Jackyd101 (talk) 00:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe that Furieuse is in fact already documented here; the others should not be too difficult to draft. I was a bit surprised that we had nothing about Troude, I rectified this (Amable Troude) with a quick patch, which I might be able to complete with a little bit of further reading and research. Cheers! Rama (talk) 09:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

PS: Congratulations on your Featured Topic, a well-deserved consecration of your work here! Many more to come, I hope. Rama (talk) 09:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

(deindent) Thankyou very much, your assistance in the process was much appreciated. I'm just wondering, what does this image File:Beau fait d'armes du capitaine Troude 3895.jpg depict? Is it the fight of Haupoult or some other action? (Realised that it is Algeciras.)--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Image permissions for File:Rumsfeld-4 hours a day.png

Hi: I'm a bit concerned about this image. If it was made by PBS, it's under copyright. Did you get a release? Ray (talk) 01:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

No release is necessary, the image is not eligible for copyright. This is a trivial reproduction of a document which is itself in the public domain, since it is the work of an employee of the federal government of the United States of America.

The rest of the broadcast is of course under copyright, as are the interviews and comments, but this particular image is not. Rama (talk) 09:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks, Ray (talk) 15:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:International Brigades medal.PNG

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:International Brigades medal.PNG. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 14:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Request for assistance

Would you be willing and able to check or comment upon some French sources? I have used, second hand, references for French air actions during WWII. These are on an online forum and referred to:

"Martin's book about Armée de l'Air losses ("Ils étaient là"); Gillet's books on French victoires (tome 1, 10-15 May, tome 2, 16 May-4 June); AéroJournal n° 3 (about night fighters Potez 631, often identified as Bf110) and n° 18 (about Aéronavale)"

. I believe that these are French language sources and my command of French is minimal so I need help. I can supply more info if that helps. I will understand if you decline this request, but do you know of anyone within the Military History project's French task force or elsewhere who could help me out? Folks at 137 (talk) 19:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

yes, these are French books and reviews. I have nothing of the sort at my disposal, but I could put a request on the age of the air project of the French Wikipedia, if you can tell me precisely what you wish to confirm. Cheers! Rama (talk) 06:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. Have look at my sandbox at User:Folks at 137/sandbox. I've copied the relevant content there and also the address of the original site and a string to aid location of the text. Also, if someone is able to explain the French squadron(?) abbreviations, eg GC, ECMU, etc then that would be of interest and probably a worthwhile addition to a elevant Wiki article. Merci! Folks at 137 (talk) 08:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The abbreviations are typical French military jargon.

• "GC" means Groupe de Chasse ("fighter groupe"), equivalent to a fighter squadron (like Groupe de Chasse I/3 for instance). This is the term used during the Second World War, the present equivalent is escadron de chasse.
• "GOA" means Groupe aérien d'observation (lit. "air observation groupe"), a squadron of observation aircraft; these would act as artillery observers, for instance.
• "GR" means Groupe de Reconnaissance, squadron of reconnaissance aircraft; these would attempt to locate and identify enemy forces without engaging them (it might not sound sufficiently obvious at first, but these are two quite different roles).
• "ECMJ" is Escadrille de Chasse Mixte de Jour ("daylight mixt fighter wing")
• "ECN" is Escadrille de Chasse de Nuit, "night figher wing"
• "GB" means Groupe de bombardement, bomber squadron

Cheers! Rama (talk) 08:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I had a look at Glossary of military abbreviations, with a view to including your explanations, but it's getting unwieldy, so I'll consider either a more specific list or an addition to the article on the French Air Force and/or History of the Armée de l'Air (1909–1942). Folks at 137 (talk) 19:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/82.123.240.133

You blocked this IP back in 2005 with the reason "Bogdanov policy". Do you think it may be time to unblock? cheers, –xeno (talk) 19:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. Blocking IPs indefinitely is weird, you are right. Cheers! Rama (talk) 22:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks =) regards, –xeno (talk) 22:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

File:CIAagent Dave.jpg...

The record shows you deleted File:CIAagent Dave.jpg. Your entry in the deletion log asserted WP:F7 -- invalid fair use claim.

Could you please point me at the discussion where a consensus was reached that this image was an example of an invalid fair use claim?

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 23:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I cannot. I deleted the image on my own discression, in accordance to "Criteria for speedy deletion specify the limited cases where administrators may delete Wikipedia pages or media without discussion." (Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, emphasise added). Rama (talk) 07:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you please copy the fair-use justification that was offered here? Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 23:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Here it is:

== Summary ==
Description: A CIA agent identified as "Dave", during the uprising of 
Taliban prisoners at Qala-i-Jangi, Northern Afghanistan(November 25, 2001).
Source:[9], originally
filmed by a TV crew from the German ARD network.
== Licensing ==
{{Non-free television screenshot}}
== Fair use rationale ==
{{Non-free use rationale
 |Description= A CIA agent identified as "Dave", during the uprising of Taliban
 prisoners at Qala-i-Jangi, Northern Afghanistan(November 25, 2001).
 |Source=[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3067386/%E2%80%98He%E2%80%99s], originally
 filmed by a TV crew from the German ARD network.
 |Article=Battle of Qala-i-Jangi
 |Portion=Screenshot of a TV film. does not limit the copyright owners' rights 
to distribute the film  in any way.
 |Low_resolution=Yes
 |Purpose=To illustrate a critical phase of the battle
 |Replaceability=Depicts a unique historical event. No free or public-domain 
images available
 |other_information=
 }}
# The screenshot is of lower resolution and quality than the original film 
(copies made from it will be of inferior quality).
# No free or public-domain images have been located for this content.
# The screenshot does not limit the copyright owners' rights to distribute 
the film on television or DVDs in any way.
# The screenshot is used to illustrate something described in the article.
# The screenshot is being used for informational purposes only, and its use 
is not believed to detract from the original film in any way.

Cheers! Rama (talk) 07:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

More ships?

Hi, I was wondering if you could sort out some more French ship articles for me? I have just completed an expanded version of Expédition d'Irlande, can you fill in the redlinked French ships in the article? Any help greatly appreciated.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Impressive work, as always. I am putting these ships on my todo list. Cheers! Rama (talk) 10:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much. On a related note, I am putting together an Order of Battle for the campaign, but I'm missing information on the captains of the frigates and smaller vessels and the identity of the French Army units deployed in the campaign. Do you have or know of a potential source for this information?--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a heads up that I have completed French order of battle in the Expédition d'Irlande to the best of my ability. Any comments, assistance or redlink filling you can help with would be greatfully received.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I realise that my production as a shipyard has not been very high recently, but I am not forgetting these ships. I will do them sooner or later. Thank you again for your constantly excellent work! Rama (talk) 21:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

File:HMS Exeter.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:HMS Exeter.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 11:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

File:HMS Mansfield.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:HMS Mansfield.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 11:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Criticisim of SUVs

Nice picture of a LR 110, but that ain't no SUV. read the definition. Greglocock (talk) 11:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Shipu

Dear User:Rama,

There has been some discussion on the name of the Chinese sloop crippled alongside the frigate Yuyuan at the Battle of Shipu, and we have concluded that its name was not Dengching but Chengching (see the discussion page for that article). I am making the necessary changes in this and other articles (e.g. Nanyang Fleet). When you have a moment, could you please change the name on that neat map you did of the Battle of Shipu? Thanks.

Djwilms (talk) 01:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Done.

That makes me think, once again, that the colours we use for this sort of maps are inherently POV... difficult to help, though.

Cheers! Rama (talk) 09:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the swift response. I don't think one can ever avoid the POV issue. My forthcoming Sino-French War book will use the term Annam throughout for Vietnam, reflecting nineteenth-century usage, and will also give Chinese names in Wade-Giles, not pinyin. Both choices implicitly endorse the French point of view against the Chinese, but to use Vietnam and to spell Chinese names in pinyin would equally endorse the Chinese point of view. There's no neutral choice. All you can do is be aware of what you are doing and explain it in the preface. My rationale is that both choices make it easier for the interested reader to go beyond my book and consult contemporary accounts of the war.

I don't know whether you saw the infobox I did for the Battle of Zhenhai, which the Chinese claim as a victory and the French don't even recognise as a battle. That was an interesting POV exercise. You could even argue, that as a non-existent battle, it doesn't deserve a Wikipedia article ...

Djwilms (talk) 01:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Typical, indeed. It's like La Hougue, or the battle of Algesiras.

You did very well with Zhenhai, I read it yesterday. Cheers! Rama (talk) 06:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again on what should have been a simple correction. My pinyin rendering of Chengching was wrong. It should be Chengqing. Could you make a consequential correction to your map when you have a moment, please. I've corrected the name everywhere else I can think of.

One more good reason why I have stuck to Wade Giles in my book. It's much more intuitive ...

Cheers!

Djwilms (talk) 01:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Done, and I have added the Chinese names. I just realised where I had heard about this Éclaireur aviso, do I added the photograph of the model to your article. Cheers! Rama (talk) 06:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Very nice, thanks! We're well on our way to getting pictures of all 35 ships in the Far East squadron.

Incidentally, I've been adding photos recently to the articles on the four Chinese regional fleets. I checked out the Chinese article on Beiyang Fleet this morning and noticed that it has now incorporated a lot of what looks like accurate technical information on the individual ships. A lot of related Chinese stuff, including some great photos, has also appeared on the internet recently. I now think there's a prospect of producing authoritative English articles on the four Chinese fleets within a few months, something I hadn't believed possible when I started expanding them from stubs last year. Wikipedia can be very exciting at times ...

Djwilms (talk) 07:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Milan Kundera

Hello Rama. I've reverted your edit to Milan Kundera, since there is a discussion questioning the credibility of Kundera images at Bundesarchiv. The case wasn't resolved yet, but I think it's better not to include that misleading image. --Vejvančický (talk) 09:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, sorry to have brought back a known issue so naively. I saw an article in an online magazine [10] where this image was featured, so it seems that they also swallowed it.

Thank you and cheers! Rama (talk) 10:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Enhanced Interrogation Techniques

Hello Rama,

you might be interested in the discussion at the article enhanced interrogation techniques. Your help would be welcome in any case.

Best regards, Larkusix (talk) 18:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Would you consider it more appropriate to characterize the "enhanced interrogation techniques" in the article as "methods of torture" or as "methods of torture and other ill-treatment" resp. "methods of torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment"?

Best regards, Larkusix (talk) 13:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Torture. I think that the other formulations are awkard; they probably reflect compromises with positions that aim at watering down the tone.

It sounds to me like "Bashing open one's skull is a method of murder, inflicting lethal wounds, life-treatening injuries and headache". Rama (talk) 13:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the formulations are awkward, nonetheless some human rights organisations use them.

ICRC-report: "The general term "ill-treatment" has been used throughout the following section, however, it should be in no way understood as minimising the severety of the conditions and treatment to which the detainees were subjected. Indeed, as outlined in section 4 below, and as concluded by this report, the ICRC clearly considers, that the allegations of the 14 include descriptions of treatments and interrogation techniques - singly or in combination - that amounted to torture and/or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment." [[11]]

Amnesty International is fond of these formulations: "The US government has been responsible for a serious assault on the absolute prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment since the attacks in the USA of 11 September 2001." "In clear breach of international law, the US administration has authorized interrogation methods and detention conditions which have in themselves or in combination violated the international prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment." [[12]] You can find many examples more. The human rights organisations are not consistent in their definitions. They sometimes talk about the same techniques as "torture" and at other times as "torture and other forms of ill-treatment". I have the expression though, that they mostly choose the broader language. What do you think? Larkusix (talk) 19:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

As far as I understand, these Human Rights organisations use these formulations because they have a serious weight on the international scene. Therefore, using a precise term like "torture" would be making a legally binding accusation, since it would be a reference to the relevant conventions on torture.

We, on the other hand, are not bound by the same need for reserve: we are an encyclopedia that aims at chararacterising facts precisely and neutrally. Our word has no consequence on our international standing (we have no particular such standing) and it will not trigger investigations on people.

Another factor is that some of these organisation (notably Human Rights Watch, but to a point Amnesty and the ACLU too) are in fact investigation bodies that aim at giving a complete and minute description of the fact. We, on the other hand, aim at producing a good summary of the events. If you have people being crucified and waterboarded in one cell, and in the next one a prisonner complains because a guard mistakenly tripped on a Koran, HRW will report everything minutely; we will report only torture because it is what matters. Rama (talk) 11:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the techniques described are torture rather than unspecific ill-treatment, because they are applied with the express intent of afflicting pain/suffering for the purpose of extracting information. But it can be difficult proving that with sources if many of them label them "torture and other forms of ill-treatment" rather than labeling them only "torture" or use both versions. I expect at least counter-arguments (in case the torture apologist become aware of that fact). I'd like to talk about that matter further with you. In case you use ICQ, my number is 121860056. If you prefer another messenger, I'd see to, that I can install it. I hope to hear from you soon, Larkusix (talk) 13:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I tend to be on IRC. It you can log on the freenode network, you will often find me around the #wikimedia-commons channel. Cheers! Rama (talk) 13:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I could use some support at the discussion and article. Larkusix (talk) 13:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Pulo Aura

Hi there, I have just put together a new version of the Battle of Pulo Aura and would be interested in your opinion and any suggestions for improvements. I was also wondering if you could create some articles for the French ships and officers involved if possible: I'm planning to write a whole series of articles on Linois' operations and so will need the ship articles to round out the campaign. Regards --Jackyd101 (talk) 18:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll be delighted, though I cannot promise anything about the less well-known officers. Cheers! Rama (talk) 10:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Whatever you can do would be appreciated - if you can't put an article together on an officer that probably indicates that they aren't notable enough for one and shouldn't be linked! I have removed the quote you added to the article and left a note on the talk page - if you can clarify the questions I raised there I would be more than happy to restore it to the article.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have thought that if you had refrained from putting this quote in the article, it wasn't because you didn't know it.

Vrignaud and Bruilhac will be difficult to document; Halgan went to be an admiral, so I expect to collect some basic material [13]. Motard, of course, if more famous, I expect to expand his article somewhat. Actually it runs in the Motard family, the father and maybe the grand-father could be worth their own articles too. I'll try to draft sort notices for the ships, as usually.

Cheers! Rama (talk) 12:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

No problems, I've removed the non-notables. Could you also take a look at Battle of Vizagapatam, especially Atalante? I'll be putting together an article on the entire campaign soon, so these will be very helpful, many thanks.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Hyppogryphe.png)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

curious

Just curious what this does. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 20:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

“ Upright: for use only on images that are taller than they are wide. This scales the image differently, considering both width and height instead of only width.

-- WP:EIS

”

Rama (talk) 20:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

File:F-GZCP.jpg

You deleted with the comment: "‎ (F7: Violates non-free use policy: very obviously not impossible to obtain Free images of this plane.)"

I'm curious about your justification... The aircraft appears certainly to have crashed at sea and to have been lost. Taking another image of it now seems sort of hard, other than (if lucky) of small pieces of it. I have not seen any photos of the specific aircraft (not generically an Air France A330, but that exact airplane) which weren't copyrighted by someone. The one from Flickr was as close to a full free license as we're likely to be able to get.

This seems to meet our historical event / non reproducable exception rather clearly to me. However, I wanted to discuss with you before raising on a board or doing something about it.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I did not say that we could create a Free image of the plane now. I say that it is not impossible to find a Free image of the plane, notably by negociating the release of one of the existing images under a Free licence. It would equally be possible to render the plane using Blender, make a drawing of it, etc etc.

Fair Use aims at making it possible to discuss one particular work. For instance, it is use appropriately on the article about Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima. Fair Use is not a free ticket to snach random copyrigthed work for petty decoration purpose. Rama (talk) 09:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe you're misinterpreting our fair use policy. Irreplaceable images of notable things - and an aircraft which has unfortunately crashed is notable - are perfectly valid fair use exceptions. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Under certain circumstances, yes. In this case, the image is not irreplaceable, so the entire point is moot.

As a rule of the thumb, unless you are discussing the very precise image for itself, you cannot claim it as "fair use". Hence the image of Iwo Jima is valid fair use, because the very precise image is being discussed; another image of the same soldiers crawling in the mud would not be an adequate replacement; and the image will obviously not be released under a Free licence. In the case of the Air France flight, there are arguments about which image would be better for the article, indicating that no particular image is needed for itself; and there have been requests for non-free images to be released under Free licences, indicating that it is indeed very possible to find free images of this plane. Rama (talk) 19:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Hawrylyshyn

Hey! Why u did this awful picture? --Yarko (talk) 14:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but you did. I only removed the background. Rama (talk) 16:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

My photo was ok, but pictured persons wanted to remove them from Wikipedia. If u didn't want to delete your creature I'll nominate it for deletion. --Yarko (talk) 14:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The Chinese dragon

Look, please. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Dragon_chinois.jpg --LittleDrakon (talk) 07:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion?

You speedy-deleted File:Design B-65.jpg, and I have no idea why... As the ships were never constructed, there are no free images available. As Jappalang (talk · contribs) said in a very similar situation,

As for the line drawing in Conway's book, I think it can qualify for fair use. Images of this theoretical ship by Wikipedia users would be running into the region of WP:OR. The ship or knowledge of its exact structure is not in existence; hence, creating it from one's guesses is an original thought that is not verified by reliable sources. Basing it off someone's idea would make it a derivative work. (A similar situation would be the Byzantine dromon in Byzantine Navy.)

Also, perhaps you could discuss your thoughts on why an image is non-free with the uploader before you speedy? Thanks and cheers, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 21:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

No, the image cannot be claimed for fair use like this, because it is not the image itself that is being discussed. It comes as a mere illustrative item, not as the core of the discussion. Compare with Raising the flag on Iwo Jima, which is a proper use of fair use.

Claiming an image for fair use entails making the statement that no Free image can possibly be created that would serve the same purpose as the image in question. In the case of the B-65, anyone can make a drawing that would be a replacement, it only requires a description of the ship as projected. Rama (talk) 23:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. As I am the opposite of an expert in copyrights and fair use, I've asked Jappalang to comment here; if what you say is true, I need to tag some of my other images for deletion. Cheers, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 01:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Uh, not too sure what help or opinions I could bring to the table (not an admin, cannot view the deleted drawing). If Richard Allison's painting was based on actual schematics and plans (the case with Design 1047 battlecruiser), then I would think his art could be "fairly used" as an illustration of the ship's design as discussed in the article (the case with Bryzantine navy). If that is not the case, then I think the painting should not be in the article unless there is criticism/commentary of it. Jappalang (talk) 12:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The image in question can also be found here; I believe that it was based on plans as it was in a book that discusses plans of the ships, Battleships: Axis and Neutral Battleships in World War II. The only line drawing I know of is this one, but I didn't use it because it seemed too cluttered to be useful at 300px. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 22:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The line drawing would be my preference for the article as it seems certainly based on the plans for the ships. Jappalang (talk) 09:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Alright, will upload that and will work on a line drawing for O class battlecruiser, although the one I have stretches over two pages (and my scanner can only scan one). Not sure if that one will be possible... —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I have had this exact same problem numerous times, and I have a small gallery of drawings of ships that I had to create for one reason or another [14]. If this can provide inspiration, I'll be delighted. Cheers and my best wishes in this endeavour ! Rama (talk) 06:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

more redlinks

Hello Rama, sorry to bother you again, but I am working on a revised and expanded version of Battle of San Domingo and related operations and was wondering if you might be able to put together an article on the French admiral Corentin de Leissegues, who is fairly essential to the campaign. If you have any extra time I'd be interested if you can locate/create articles for the French ships listed at User:Jackyd101/Workbox7, and any of the officers that may be notable? If you don't have the time then of course I understand. Regards --Jackyd101 (talk) 00:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll be delighted. I have been fancying the idea of writing the article about Régulus for some days. As for the French admirals and officers, so many are missing that your requests are a way to carry out the work without being overwhelmed.

Cheers! Rama (talk) 10:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Much appreciated--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Enhanced Interrogation Techniques

Your present version (describing EIT as a "euphamism for torture") is now the subject of discussion at the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard here: [15]. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 07:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

branle-bas de combat

Hello Rama, I am curious about the literal translation of the expression found in General quarters and how it applies to stacking hammocks for protection. I think that the caption you wrote for the image is a bit confusing in the use of the word "stemming" but I am not sure what would be a better word until I understand literal meaning of the term better. As far as I know, British navy practice was to stack the hammocks at the start of the day, not just when beating to quarters. They must have had to sleep with wet hammocks sometimes. Dabbler (talk) 11:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

"Branle" is an old term for "hammock" (don't use it now, virtually nobody would understand and it also means something else). "Branle-bas" is the order to remove the hammocks from their sleeping position; the buggle call that wakes the crews has the same name and is still used (n°1 at [16] if you are curious).

"Branle-bas de combat" is litterally "Battle branle-bas". It is often said that it is linked to the practice of staking the hammocks as too absorb ennemy fire, but as you say, I find it suspicious that they would have been installed like this only at action stations. Since branle-bas comes down to "at your stations", the expression could be a very litteral "battle stations", albeit with a sligthly convoluted ethymology. I will ask what the French naval project think about this and keep you informed.

Pardon my clumsy English, I meant "engendering", "creating", or something of the sort.

Cheers! Rama (talk) 11:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Sweet!

So me, being rather unobservant, only just noticed what you drew for Design B-65 cruiser. Apologies for only seeing it now, but thank you very much! —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

New articles

Hi Rama, hope you are well. I have just finished the monster article Atlantic campaign of 1806 and its companion Order of battle in the Atlantic campaign of 1806, both of which contain many redlinks for French ships and officers. Do you think you will be able to put together articles, no matter how short on the ships and on the notable officers (Allemand's expedition of 1805 needs some redlinks filling too)? There is no rush on any of this, but I just wanted to draw it to your attention in case you were able to assist.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

P.S. on another note, I was wondering whether you could confirm for me whether or not (as at least one British source claims) some of the French transports on the page French order of battle in the Expédition d'Irlande were disarmed or former frigates, to clarify a point in the text.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

I am currently cruising Bretagne's main museums in order to enrich the illustrations of our articles, but I will start these articles when I return to my books.

Absolutely spectacular articles, as always, and yet still amazing. I am happy to have the chance to assist in these. Cheers! Rama (talk) 20:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I have

• no match for Nicomède; probably not a ship of the Navy
• the name Justine was used only by a gunboat, the closer is Justice, which was used for frigates, but none seem to have taken part in the Expédition d'Irlande; probably not a ship of the Navy
• Fille Unique was used for a frigate posterior to the events; probably not a ship of the Navy
• the Ville de Lorient seems to have been a former merchantman, purchased by the Navy in 1793, armed with 22 6-pounders and 2 12-pounders. I do not think that she was ever an actual frigate, but she would be by the criterion "anything between 20 and 50 guns".
• Suffren was a 24-gun merchantman bought into the Navy in 1794; same as above.
• Allègre is listed as a "fluyt", probably a military transport built as such; I do not know what was her broadside.
• Experiment is probably the former HMS Experiment, 50-gun ship of the line captured on 16 August 1778 (?) by Sagittaire, razeed in 1795, and armed en flûte in her late career.

Cheers ! Rama (talk) 21:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Allègre, like most small flûtes, carried very few guns. In fact, she was listed in November 1796 as armed at Brest with just four pieces of ordnance, comprising two 8-pounders, one 4-pounder and a 6-pounder obusier. So "broadside" is not a meaningful term here. Rif Winfield (talk) 10:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou very much both, this clears up a discrepacy in my sources that I've been puzzling over. I'll make changes to the articles in question.--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)