User talk:Ericd

This user may have left Wikipedia. Ericd has not edited Wikipedia since February 2013. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

User talk:Ericd/Archives - Discussions that were on my user page

User talk:Ericd/Archives 1

User talk:Ericd/Archives 2

User talk:Ericd/Archives 3

Image:Taylor-Cooke Triplet.png

Hi just wanna drop you a note that I have created a vector format of this diagram (Image:Taylor-Cooke Triplet.svg). I personally want to nominate it for deletion since it is not needed anymore and I am here to ask for your consent/opinion. --antilived ^{T | C} 07:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ericd, I work for MIT OpenCourseWare and would like to use this image Image:Taylor-Cooke Triplet.svg as part of a course site I'm publishing. The professor uses it in a lecture to demonstrate some optics modeling software, so it appears on the PDF lecture slides and in the lecture video. We use a CC-BY-NC-SA license, which is incompatible with the CC-BY-SA license listed here. I would like your permission to use this image, instead of having to replace it with a different one. If you agree, please let me know either by commenting here or by emailing me at taliaw at mit dot edu, and I'll send you the full text of our license agreement. It seems you're not active on Wikipedia anymore, but I do hope you'll take a moment to consider this request. Thanks. --TaliaW 18.193.0.177 (talk) 18:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:French-people.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:French-people.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. --OrphanBot 08:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Cloitre--Cimiez.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Cloitre--Cimiez.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. 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 any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -SCEhard T 06:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Bolivian communist party

My Watchlist says you made another coment a little while ago, but i cant find it. something about a reference to Sardino...? PJB 18:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oooops... Sandino... Sandino... Sandinist... Ericd 18:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apartheid Era in South Africa FP nomination

Hi. I notice you opposed the Apartheid featured picture nomination, on the grounds that the photo was faked or enhanced. As several people disagree with you, could you please explain why you believe this to be the case? Thanks. Raven4x4x 05:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the author of the photo, I can confirm that the photo was neither faked nor enhanced. In fact, most of what you say in the discussion of it is wrong. Please be careful, especially if English is not your first language, about using words like 'fake' to describe things people have made themselves and donated for free. Guinnog 16:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please check your WP:NA entry

Greetings, editor! Your name appears on Wikipedia:List of non-admins with high edit counts. If you have not done so lately, please take a look at that page and check your listing to be sure that following the particulars are correct:

If you are an admin, please remove your name from the list.
If you are currently interested in being considered for adminship, please be sure your name is in bold; if you are opposed to being considered for adminship, please cross out your name (but do not delete it, as it will automatically be re-added in the next page update).
Please check to see if you are in the right category for classification by number of edits.

Thank you, and have a wiki wiki day! BD2412 T 04:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Pictograms.png

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Pictograms.png. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. 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 any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Matt 04:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Film developing

I noted your comments about the quality of this and another article. It would perhaps be more helpful to edit them make them better rather than condem them. 62.6.249.131 20:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've started the article, as well as other articles about photography. My previous comment (a few minutes earlier) gave my opinion on the merging of articles. My comment about article being very bad was not especially targeted about contributors to the article. Some articles, including this one IMO are very bad because of a bunch of out of topic contributions. For your information, I didn't edit the Film developping article but I've searched for related topics and made several edits on E-6 process. I don't believe it's offensive to express my opinion about the quality level of some article. I need more time to make a proposal about what shout be included in various articles about film processing or film developping. Ericd 21:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

French F1 championship

Eric - someone added a ref to a French F1 championship onto the main F1 page a couple of days ago, noting it as being during the 1950s. I know that many non World Championship F1 races were held in France at that time, but haven't previously heard of a national championship. I know you've got an interest in this period - do you know anything about it? I've put a comment on the main F1 discussion page.

P.S. Good work on the history article! 4u1e 22:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info, mate. That might explain why I couldn't google anything up on 'french F1 championship' (or even 'championnat français formule 1'). Don't suppose you've got a reference, have you? 4u1e 18:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Defroked

I wasn't sure what you meant when you said you'd froked the article section: defroked is a play on defrocked. All the best.--Shtove 23:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

F1 portal featured article

Hi Eric. The F1 portal is intended to have a regular rotation of a 'featured article'. I've swapped a few in and out over the last couple of months, but I think it would be better if there were more of a community attempt at deciding this, proposals, votes, that kind of thing. So - why not pop over to Portal_talk:Formula_One#Suggestions_for_Featured_Article: and make a suggestion. Ta. 4u1e 00:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

spaggiari/kay

salut! je vois sur ta user page que tu parles français, so.... tu as écrit bcp de choses sur la page Albert Spaggiari. Tu fais mention d'un certain Jean Kay qui aurait été dans son équipe lors du casse de nice; c'était il y a longtemps, mais peux tu me dire où tu as eu cette info stp? elle est présente telle quelle un peu partout sur le net; est ce parcequ'elle a été recopiée de la page wiki, ou l'as tu toi meme recopiée? merci de preciser, je prepare un article sur Jean Kay et je cherche des infos sur lui - Vegetarian75 19:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Désolé la référence à Jean Kay n'est pas de moi, et je ne sais pas grand chose à son sujet. Ericd 20:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
J'ai trouvé ça http://www.livrenpoche.com/livre/Les-fous-de-guerre/164043.html ca pourrait être le bon ? Ericd 20:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A props de Spaggiari je me souvient d'un documentaire TV avec l'interview de l'organisateur de son évasion. Comme les faits étaient prescrits il donnait le nom de beaucoup de personnes. il faudrait peut être fouiller le site de l'INA. Ericd 08:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
http://spaggiari.blogspot.com/2004/10/les-complices-du-casse-de-nice.html Ericd 08:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

merci pour ta reponse, même si elle ne m'aide pas bcp! je connais bien ces sites, et c'est à ceux là que je faisais allusion ds mon message précédent. J'ai lus aussi tous les bouquins de Jean Kay. Si jamais tu as d'autres infos, penses à moi! merci - Vegetarian75 14:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What a know-it-all. Keep you nose out of things you know NOTHING about!!

Thanks for this very interresting anonymous contribution. Ericd 13:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

dear anonymous, if you have any information, give it to us, to wikipedia, instead of writting things like this. Mais puisque tu comprends le français, tu pourrais répondre aussi en français et signer également ton message. Descend donc de ton bateau et vient discuter avec nous (peut etre même en dehors de wiki), il y a prescription maintenant... et n'abuse pas trop des pizzas et des pates! ciao bello!! ;-) Vegetarian75 08:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

La Socca et le Bellet ? Ericd (talk) 22:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

European Graduate School and advertising

Hello! Being quite suspicious about the EGS article, I've nominated it for deletion. To counter this, the EGS actually created its own user page and has acted in the Afd (see there) in such a way that it has confirmed my suspicions (there has been lot of internal spam linking on Wiki biographies). Furthermore, I've just seen that a critical comment had been deleted on the quite unfrequented talk page of the EGS article, which is yet another grounds for my suspicion. Maybe you would be interested at monitoring this almost certain (my first innocence toward the school slowly transformed itself in suspicions after some time-spending on Wikipedia, and has now became almost 100% positive) spamming (which also serves to boost Google result for the EGS website). Regards, Santa Sangre 07:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me for this late answer. But I've been a bit overbooked in June. In 2003 I reverted several anonymous edits. This was mostly biography of famous people like Jean Baudrillard, Peter Greenaway and Volker Schlöndorff. For instance see : [[1]]. At that time the decision process was not as complex as it is today. IMO those edit were spam or advertising and thus in violation of the NPOV policy. I don't think the EGS article should be removed, but it seems clear to me that the behaviour of the EGS is unfair. My proposal is to ban EGS account(s).

I can also tell that it's a pity that in such a prestigious academic institution there is nobody to write some excellent article about the brilliant artists and intellectuals that conduct Intensive Summer Seminars.

Ericd 20:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Long talk page

Greetings! Your talk page is getting a bit long in the tooth - please consider archiving your talk page (or ask me and I'll archive it for you). Cheers! BD2412 T 23:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Selected articles on Portal:F1

Hello again.

I dropped notes round a while back to those who have listed themselves at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Formula_One to ask for suggestions for selected articles on portal:Formula One. There was a pretty good response, both in terms of how it might work and of articles suggested. Damon Hill came out with the most support and was brought up to Good Article standard after a lot of work by Skully Collins and others before going on as the F1 portal selected article a couple of weeks ago. It is now at Featured Article Candidates as a Featured Article candidate (why not drop by and see if you can help polish it further?).

Several people who responded to the original request suggested that a monthly or bi-weekly 'Selected Article' could act as a catalyst for an improvement drive to get more articles up to a higher standard. Although it wasn't quite what I had in mind when I started, this seemed to work pretty well for the Damon Hill article, so I've drafted up a process for doing this more regularly. See Portal_talk:Formula_One/Management_of_selected_articles for details. Essentially the suggestion is that we vote for an article to improve every couple of weeks and at the end of the improvement process the article goes on the portal as the new 'Selected Article'. I'd be grateful for any comments on how this might work - I'm sure some of you are more familiar with things 'Wiki' than me - as well as your votes for the next candidate (by 16 July).

You may also want to help with the article Gilles Villeneuve, which was the next most popular after Damon Hill. The idea is to try and get it up to GA standard by 16 July and then put it on the portal as the 'Selected Article'. I hope you can help! 4u1e 15:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talbot Tagora photograph

Hello Eric! I have noticed you have made and uploaded some really great photographs to Wikipedia, including lovely car photos :D I have also seen your edits of the Simca article, so I guess you might be more or less interested in the topic.

I am a member of the WikiProject Automobiles, and the members of this WikiProject were recently informed that it might be questionable whether we can use car brochure and press photos as FA images in articles on cars. This made us start a small initiative consisting in trying to contact various car owners, enthusiasts and clubs to ask them whether they could release some photos of (selected) more exotic/historic vehicles to public domain via Wikimedia Commons.

Of particular importance is getting a Talbot Tagora picture, as the article is currently as Featured Article Candidate and cannot pass without a proper free photo. I have tried to contact various UK-based Talbot/Simca/Chrysler enthusiasts and clubs, but as of now, to no avail (even though I got some really favorable responses and nice photos of other cars from other sources I contacted). So, I think another source of such photos could some French enthusiasts and clubs - alas, I don't speak French (and barely speak English, as you may see) and there are apparently no French-speaking WikiProject members.

As you are a native Francophone, would you be so kind and consider helping us with this project, whose importance I believe you can understand, and try to email the [Club 604 (which groups both Peugeot 604 and Tagora enthusiast) regarding this issue? This is the only such source came accross, but I guess you could find some more French-speaking associations and Tagora owners, which I would be most thankful for.

I hope you would consider helping me in my desperate mision. Excuse me for bothering you if you find this inappropriate. Best Regards, Bravada, talk - 14:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will contact the Tagora enthusiasts in French. Sadly, there's few hope for me to shoot a Tagora in the street. Sales were so poor that I've seen the car only once ! Ericd 20:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merci beaucoup for that and for correcting my puny attempts at French :D I hope you will have a great time over the pond and make some superb photos! Bravada, talk - 20:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Concerning the V6 engine, I would be grateful if you could expand on that and provide some references, perhaps in French (as my French is close to non-existent, I relied on English sources for the most part). It might be also worth discussing how it compares to much higher sales of other PSA and non-PSA models equipped with the same engine - or perhaps were the sales of PRV-equipped models equally as poor?

I have no real source, I remember that the the PRV was always criticized by the (French) press as being less fuel efficient than BMW, Mercedes or Alfa engines. As far as I remember when the Tagora was introduced all the non-PRV powered direct competitor competitors were using fuel injection. My own experience with the PRV was my father's Renault 30 TX that used a more sophisticated version of the PRV with fuel injection. A good car but far from the quality of German production. Later a friend of mine buyed a second-hand R20 TX 2,2 L. Basically it was a R30 with a fuel injected aluminium OHC straigth-4. I drove this car in some occasion and the comparison was not really in favor of the R30 the high-end R20 was less powerfull but with the light engine it had much better handling. The 20 was much cheaper and fuel consumption was seriously cut down. Ericd 21:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe that's some really valuable information, but I tried to make the Tagora article an example how a complete article can be correctly referenced, which is why I nominated it to FA. I am afraid as the FA is standing and we cannot afford to have unreferenced paragraphs in it, I will have to commentize it until a reference is found. I hope you won't take offence and I am sorry to have to do that given your spontaneous willingness to help with the project. Bravada, talk - 21:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it could be possible to find some reference about the standard fuel consumption of the Tagora and the fuel consumption of its main competitors. Ericd 21:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two sources in French about the high fuel consumption of the original PRV :

http://www.motorlegend.com/12854-6/presentation/peugeot-604.html

http://nicosfly.free.fr/autres604.php

Ericd 21:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, I guess I could even use the German car catalogue I used as the reference for the article. The problem is that we would have to find a source stating that this was the REASON why the Tagora sold so poorly. Anyway, I guess this refers just to the V6 version (which sold poorly in its own respect, I guess not only due to the thirsty Douvrin). Bravada, talk - 22:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In between I have searched here and there on web the Tagora had Weber carbs while the the original 604 had (probably smaller) Solex carbs. The 604 and the R30 were alvailable with the fuel injected PRV, more powerful and consuming less. And, you know what ? The PRV with the Webers was more powerful than the fuel injected PRV ! In fact the Tagora V6 was the most powerful French car at that time. In fact they sacrified consumption for power. A huge mistake on the French market. There was no hope to beat the BMWs or (on the cheap side) the high end versions of the Opel Commodore at this game. Ericd 22:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now this is some interesting fact! Perhaps you might add that to the reference section with with references! I guess the V6 Tagora was doomed anyway, first of all most people looked at German and perhaps British brands in the executive class anyway (I mean Europewide), and then even if they considered a French car, the Tagora was at the end of the pecking order. Bravada, talk - 22:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eric! As you might have seen, I have moved the information you provided on the PRV engine to the engine section, as I have found a reference for that. I haven't found any sound data on earlier (Solex-fitted) PRVs, so I did not comment on that. As concerns the evaluation of the PRV, please see the articles talk page for explanation. Thanks again for your input!

I was wondering whether you have managed to contact any Tagora enthusiasts about the photo - is there any hope we could obtain one? Bravada, talk - 11:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thanks for you reply! I am sorry to hear what happened to you :( In the meantime I have managed to get some photos from another source, but I would like to thank you for your help! Regards, Bravada, talk - 18:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Work and Holidays

Sorry for answering late on my talk page. Don't expect me to be very responsive until September. I'll be a bit busy in July while in August I sould be rolling from New York to San Francisco with a good friend and an old Leica in a Pontiac Grand Prix. Ericd 20:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Homeless Woman.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Homeless Woman.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks bot this is OK now ! Ericd 22:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

f-number

Eric, take a look at how the template f/ works, and use it appropriately in your edits to fast lenses. The notation 50mm/1.0 is often used as a shorthand, too. If you must change it, change it to the correct f-number notation.

As to the film speeds, see my comments in the f-number talk page. Dicklyon 21:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the f/ template is now OK. Before I edited the list it was un-ordered and notation were varying from one line to another.

Hairpin turn

Your photo Image:Col de Braus-small.jpg is wonderful. You should add this image and mention this route on Hairpin turn. Maybe also a picture of the hair pin that it's named for: Bobby pin. Dicklyon 00:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but I'm not really happy with this one, there is to much grain IMO. I know when I made the shot that it was underexposed by a full stop. Ericd 00:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Renault

Eric, you raised a question at Talk:Renault F1. I've responded there. Regards Mark83 23:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Picture on the Homelessness article

Hi Eric. You switched the main image on the Homelessness article to yours from Nice. Well, it might have merited some discussion, but it seems reasonably okay to do. The other image was from a well-known photographer. However, in international spirit, I guess we should leave yours for now until such time as the quintessential homeless person image is found. Thanks and Best Regards. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 16:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"it might have merited some discussion" . Well it might, I think it would be fair to have a discussion of the talk page to select pictures. The photo of the man with the American flag is excellent indeed. However I think the American flag is a bit to much.

I think my picture has some qualities :

- It shows a women while we mostly see photo of male homeless,

- It shows someone sleeping in the street,

- The race of the person is undefined.

Ericd 16:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eric. Thanks for your kind response. Yes, your picture is broader than just America and what you pointed out is true. One interesting part of the other photograph was the juxtaposition of the flag and the homeless person. We will leave it for now, with yours, n'est pas ? Best and Thanks. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 17:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point yes much of the strength of the picture is in the juxtaposition of the flag and the homeless person. My point is not that the US flag is too "American". My point is that it's a strong message, maybe a bit to much considering NPOV policy.

To be honest I'm not pleased with the colors of my photo, I think they are a bit "nauseating". I've made some attempt to tweak the color or to turn this to B & W, and well I don't like the result. Considering the subject I think the picture works "as is" and it's not a good idea to try to make a pretty picture. Ericd 22:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eric. Your photo is fine as it is. Best Regards. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 12:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FPC

Can you please update your Featured pic cantidate page: Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Bentley_S1_Continental_Fastback_Coupe_Mulliner to follow the template in the instructions found here: Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Nomination_Procedure? The nomination needs your reasons and where the pic appears. -Ravedave 03:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are making edits but still no update...-Ravedave 05:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong now ? Ericd 07:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation of edit.

Can you please explain why you made this edit: [[2]]. thanks. --WikipedianProlific ^(Talk) 21:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because the signature was the result of a rought cut and paste, see [[3]]. Ericd 21:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, no problem =)

Autobianchi pictures

Hello again! You have been very kind to help with the Talbot Tagora photographs and I guess I will be trying to abuse your kindness even further, as a similar problem ensued with Autobianchi. There are few pictures of their cars in the Commons, and some models are really rare. To add to that, most of them have not been sold in the UK (not to mention USA), so there are almost no potential English-speaking source ;) for them. There is, however, the Club Autobianchi in France [4], which seems to be very well organized and has a great website! So, perhaps you could contact them and ask whether they could inform their members that articles on their favorite cars are being developed on Wikipedia and photos are needed?

I also cordially invite you to participate in the editing of Autobianchi articles whenever you would find time! Regards, Bravada, talk - 16:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sois Jeune et Tais Toi

Where did you find the [Sois Jeune et Tais Toi] image? I find it very striking. Can you possibly send me or direct me to a higher resolution version? Thanks. --Andy M. 11:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:GPL-BRM.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:GPL-BRM.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:C-130.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:C-130.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -SCEhard T 03:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Carthage College.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Carthage College.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 14:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Cool down Bot ! Let me some time to tag the image ! Ericd 14:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brabham

Hi Eric - long time no collaborate!

If you have the time, I'd be grateful for your views on the current version of the Brabham Racing Organisation article. It's currently GA, but I'm thinking of putting it up for FA shortly and need others' views to catch my no doubt numerous errors.

Cheers. 4u1e 13:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you've been busy! Hope you enjoyed your trip to the States - seems like a long time ago now!

Regarding the Murray interview - I'd love to have a scan of the item, not that I don't trust you, but as I say, I'm interested in the topic anyway. I'll try and enable the e-mail link on my account. My French should still be up to the task of reading the original document. It would be great for now if you had the time to write or summarise the relevant bits on talk:Brabham Racing Organisation, in English or French. We're supposed to use English language sources for the English Wikipedia, but in the absence of another source giving this point of view in detail, I'm happy to use a French language one.

OK Iwill scan it ! Ericd 18:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting about the Lotus - it's funny how there's always someone who introduced the technology a little earlier than the recognised 'title holder'. McLaren had carbon fibre in 1981 (Lotus at same time, which I didn't know - thanks!), Brabham had been using it since late 1970s, to strengthen their aluminium tubs. Hill used it in in 1975 for rear wing mounts - and we know what happened to them in Spain!

If you consider composite materials and car racing broadly the first was Chapparal with its epoxy chassis. Despite the obvious gain in strenght nobody copied probably because unlike Jim Hall they didn't have any contact with the NASA enginneer that knew of to build such things. Ericd 18:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added a bit to Brabham on the accusations of cheating, by the way, as you suggested.

I for one hope that you decide you would prefer to continue on Wikipedia. Yes, it's frustrating (I had to get the Carlos Reutemann article retrieved by an admin the other day (see user_talk:Robth#Carlos_Reutemann) but the more 'good guys' we have here, the better! 17:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course this is related to the fact that I have bunch of interresting things to do outside cyberspace. But also my feeling is that Wikipedia is less and less democratic. As of today 0,4% of registred users are admins and a lot of decision making is made by a few people strictly applying guidelines. When you look to these guidelines they are written by one or two dozen of people and never went into a vote. See Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep and Iron law of oligarchy. Ericd 18:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dirtrucks

A tag has been placed on Dirtrucks, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable (see the guidelines for notability here). If you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please write {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself.

Please read the criteria for speedy deletion (specifically, articles #7) and our general biography criteria. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. —K e akealani 00:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This use of speedy deletion is just unacceptable to me. It's time to leave Wikipedia. Ericd 14:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please Dont Leave

Hi Ericd,

You are obviously interested in contributing to Wikipedia, and it would be a shame to lose you. Notability is a difficult issue in Wikipedia, with people complaining that unimportant sports personalities and actors are listed when important members of the scientific or arts world are not. This is due to popular culture giving more weight to these people. But still you have to have notability guidelines. You cant just have any band having an entry - otherwise we go from a encyclopaedia to just a web directory of all bands (I hope you can see why this is not Wikipedia's job).

The people that have suggested Dirttrucks for deletion have done so, not because they are vindictive, but because they are trying to maintain a certain level of standard. None of them would argue with a Dirttrucks article if it could be shown that they have had important US/European tours, or have sold plenty of records either here or in Japan. Unfortunately it is difficult to find this info on-line and verify. Until there is information from other sources (e.g. cd sellers or critics) then they will not be seen a notable...

This is how Wikipedia works - and the good thing is, that if tomorrow they suddenly sell loads of their EP or have critical review by a major critic then anyone can remake their article - Wikipedia is very flexible.

I hope you stay and help contribute and enjoy the experience. I remember making only my 2nd article, only for someone to propose its deletion. I was livid, but when I talked to the person that had proposed the deletion it was all very friendly and it got sorted it out. I hope you can see in this case that no one has been unfriendly - the worse maybe that they are applying guidelines that they could have explained to you better.

Anyway, cheers. If you have ever any problems or questions just leave a message on my talk page :):)

Lethaniol 16:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks,

First let me tell you that I'm here since 2002. While Wikipedia is growing it going less and less democratic I was one first to support a strict copyright policy at thta time you were considered as "facist" when you asked to someone what was the exact copyright status of the image he uploaded. Now an admin can delete article without warning any of the contributor on the ground that the article is about something that is not notable. You will tell me that there is a guideline but I often surprised by the few number of people that wrote this guideline and as far as I know there's no vote to adopt a guideline. See Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep and Iron law of oligarchy.

I also think that the idea that Wikipedia will get stronger by epuration is wrong (and remember me of Joseph Stalin). Why do people contribute to Wikipedia for free ? Because they have show interest for this subject. I don't see why writing an article on an obscure subject will weaken Wikipedia. Good articles on any subject are good for Wikipedia.

Of course there's is some limit, at some point it will be a joke for instance I write an article about my neigthbor John Smith that is an excellent singer in his bathroom. But that wasn't the case, there's enougth on the web to verify that Dirtrucks exists has recorded an EP and LP and made an US tour and an European tour. That is not that common for a J-rock girls band. Even if Dirtrucks will not change the face of music or have a major hit, they're definitely more than a band playing in a garage and giving one concert per year for Chritsmas. (I wonder to what extend my photo has played a role in suggesting that it was my girlfriend playing in my garage or that I contributed to the article only to promote myself as a photographer).

I don't see why there's a notability guideline for musicians when Wikipedia is including articles about any porn starlet. Seriously this led no more serious moral issues than an article about an obscure band. Less seriously I'm waiting for a notability guideline for porn actress, will DP or anal be mandatory ?

I think its time to think the future of Wikipedia a lot of people write that Wikipedia is competing with Britannica. Well I've never seen things like that, I think Wikipedia is different and I think its a good thing that Wikipedia is different. It seems to me that the current trend is to make Wikipedia less different and I'm not sure it's a good idea. If writing for Wikipedia become as boring as writing an academic article, I know what I have to do, there's more benefit for me in doing something else.

Cheers. Ericd 21:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you're still interested in this matter but there is in fact a guideline for porn actors Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors) and it's been there since before you posted e.g. [5] although it's changed a bit since then. I don't know the details of the specific case above but the fact that there are details on the web to verify they exist hardly seems enough if you aren't talking about reliable sources. I could easily make a band up a pretend they've done things they haven't and make a website or a few websites about it. I can even pretend to be other people who are talking about this band which doesn't exist. While this may not be the case for dirtrucks, the point is reliable sources matter precisely because otherwise anyone can make up anything. The fact the web says something is proof of nothing. Also, wikipedia is different but it doesn't mean we should have an article on every single thing that may or may not exist in the world. Indeed, it doesn't mean we should have an article on every single thing that exists in the world. Moral issues are irrelevant. If you find porn disgusting, that's you're right but it doesn't mean that we should not have articles on porn stars who are more notable then dirtrucks just because you find porn immoral. If anything, by pretending porn stars don't exist then we are surely being more immoral... The reality is we have a lot more articles then Britannica including porn stars and bands. This is not going to change. But we're not a collection of random information but an encylopaedia so we are not going to have details on everything that someone is interested in writing about either Nil Einne 11:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is that I had source maybe not notable source but several sources. I tour dates. I had photos. I had a bunch of link to video on Youtube. The article was as NPOV as it can be. I wasn't the only contributor. And the article was speedy deleted ! Why ?

Because I had no report by notable media ? Or because someone believed it was my girlfriend playing in a garage ?

I don't see what made the article bad for Wikipedia. To quote you "The reality is we have a lot more articles then Britannica including porn stars and bands. This is not going to change.". Yes, and IMO we be may even be better if we had more. It's a good think that Wikipedia include articles on topics not reported by notable media its also a good thing that there is article about topics that would be forgotten otherwise in twenty years. Its a good thing that Wikipedia has a extensive coverage on obscure topics.

What really deserve Wikipedia is such a poor article about Regis Debray, for instance. Not a small article on Dirtrucks. You may ignore this but I was very active in enforcing copyright policies and sourcing some articles. But I think Wikipedia doesn't work anymore. Like many other I don't have any fun to contribute to Wikipedia yet it's just getting boring... And it will kill Wikipedia in the long run, as we are not paid for this fun in essential.

No, I'm not disgusted by pornography. I may even like it.

Ericd 12:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Murray

Great - thanks! You should be able to see an 'e-mail this user' tab somewhere on my user page now. I'm on broadband so size of the file shouldn't be a problem for me, if it's OK for you. Cheers. 4u1e 19:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Henri Chrétien

Hi, I posted a comment on Talk:Henri Chrétien about a change in that article you made some years ago. Please comment on it. :) Kricke 13:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject France

Hello! We are a group of editors working to improve the quality of France related articles. You look like someone who might be interested in joining us in the France WikiProject and so I thought I'd drop you a line and invite you! We'd love to have you in our project :-) STTW (talk) 14:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I thought you'd make a good addition to WikiProject Africa. Care to consider this invitation as well? — Emiellaiendiay 04:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Summaries

Hi, Eric. Thanks a lot for your recent contributions to film stuff (120 film, 135 film, etc.) Please don't forget to provide an edit summary beyond the default—it makes it a lot easier to review your edits, especially when there are a bunch in rapid succession. Thanks. jhawkinson 21:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

US Army Generals

Could you please clarify your vote at US Army Generals?

Many thanks Pstuart84 Talk 21:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Easyly the picture has terrific grain even by WWII standards underexposed or overdevelopped. The lens is not very sharp even... The picture is full of dust and scratches. Ericd 21:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I was hoping you could add support, oppose or comment to the FPC page. Cheers, Pstuart84 Talk 21:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not vote. Considering the modern photography technology and actual FP criteria its bad. Considering the 40s photographic technology its bad too despite the fact that anything that is not a digital Cakon or Ninon is considered as Flintstone technology by many. However it shows some interresting people to say the least... I should vote according to some FP criteria while I don't believe in the FP criteria as a mean to feature interresting pictures. Ericd 21:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image: Honda V-twin

What model of bike did this image come from?

Starlette picture, FP delisting candidate

Dear Ericd, I have listed your picture of starlette at Featured picture delisting candidates. Sorry. I do not believe that it meets the FP criteria as they currently stand.

If you want to, have a look at the nomination here: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/starlette and comment.

Best, Witty Lama 22:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:Facel.png

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Facel.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FP criteria

Hi Ericd, glad you like my pics, sorry it's taken so long to reply. I just realised you may not be watching my talkpage, which is where the following is copied from.
As with all of the criteria, a complete re-write might have been a good idea, had they not been the result of years of consensus; for this reason, I avoided changing the wording as much as possible. The main improvements I wanted to make were for a more logical and concise presentation, with examples etc taken out to galleries and footnotes. I do sympathise with your argument about film grain and digital noise and defintiely agree there is room for improvement in the wording; your version sounds better and I can't see there being much opposition. Why not WP:BE BOLD and post up the amendment with maybe a short notice on the discussion page?
The manipulation criterion was changed quite recently following discussion on that same discussion page and elsewhere - I'd say burning and dodging were already covered by the "colour/exposure correction" wording and any additional wording should be as clarification, using <ref>clarification</ref> to make it a footnote.
Thanks for your input, it's always good to have support!
mikaul^talk 12:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Zeiss_Tessar.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Zeiss_Tessar.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media 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. Sherool (talk) 22:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

La Jamais Contente aerodynamics

I reverted your edit at La Jamais Contente and added a reference. The seating position is indeed very high up. Have a look at http://www.lajamaiscontente.com/ and http://www.metropoleparis.com/1999/418/418fastr.html for examples. // Liftarn

I think you're right, your second reference conviced me more than the drawing. I made some research to find a photo of Jenatzy actualy driving the car and found this http://www.mairie-acheres.fr/menu2.htm the front surface of the driver seems roughly equal to the surface of the body. However comparing to the previous car of Jenatzy La Jamais Contente is a huge improvement. Aside of this I am still trying to know what was the brand of the car. Some source say it was a CITA (Compagnie Internationale des Transports Automobiles) while some other says Compagnie Générale des Transports Automobiles Jenatzy. This said, Jenatzy company changed its name several times the chassis may well have been made when the company had one name and ran for the record when the company had an other name. Ericd 18:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to butt in, but the second link above (to metropoleparis.com) is slightly misleading. There's a photograph of what looks like someone sitting in the driver's seat, but if you look closer you'll see that they are actually standing behind the car (you can see their feet!). -Ashley Pomeroy (talk)

License tagging for Image:A005 0734.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:A005 0734.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Cimiez-new.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Cimiez-new.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 16:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Zapata_poster.jpg

I have tagged Image:Zapata_poster.jpg as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale on the image description page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 13:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Albigensian Crusade

I'm contacting you out of courtesy as you have contributed to the page and may wish to supply your own citations. If you feel this doesn't matter to you, please ignore it. This page was rated as a Good Article, but has been downgraded because nobody did the donkeywork of listing the attributions to the various statements provided, which is after all a fairly serious dereliction of duty in what's suppoed to be a historical record. Having discussed the withdrawal of GA with LuciferMorgan, I give notice that I am sitting down with the three classic original source texts (Puylaurens, Vaux-de-Cernay and de Tudèle - the last in the Livre de Poche edition as the Martin-Chabot is long out of print) to add the missing inline citations to this page. I do not intend at this point to make any textual alterations, but if comments are made which are NOT justified, be prepared to state your sources now.

Jel 21:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I see that you have not edited in a while. Come back! Uetz 17:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:The Spanish Inquisition.ogg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:The Spanish Inquisition.ogg. I notice the image page specifies that the image 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 image 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 '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 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. — Κaiba 14:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Paris 1900 Refractor.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Paris 1900 Refractor.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 17:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comgratulations you have deleted a very rare picture ! Ericd (talk) 20:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of List of Monegasque people

I have nominated List of Monegasque people, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Monegasque people. 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. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List were essential to Wikipedia before software allowed us to use categories. Delete if you want. Don't doubt ! Like epuration made the communist party stronger, deletion makes Wikipedia better. Ericd (talk) 01:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Radio LCA.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Radio LCA.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 03:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:The Spanish Inquisition.ogg

Thanks for uploading Image:The Spanish Inquisition.ogg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 02:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Answer

The image is sound... You stupid bot... You should speedy delete yourself.. You are too stupid... And you're allowed to speedy delete... You don't know anything of my efforts to enforce copyrights here with some other Wikipedians... You can't imagine the time I spent to remove a photography with dubious copyright... And you stupid bot are allowed to speedy delete ? Is there any bot to speedy keep anything that contains some kind of intelligence ? I'am pissed off of Wikipedia...

Wikipedia is not a democracy... Wikipedia is is no more governed by a "benevolent dictators". Wikipedia is no more a community...

Wikipedia is ruled by bots. Bots and teenagers who believes that Wikipedia guidelines discussed by twenty wikipedians were writen at the top of the "Mount Sinai".

Those guys and girls believe they hold science since the day of their birth, but behave like elephants in a cristal glass shop.

For instance the Porsche 917 article. An obscure topic, I agree. Says, in it's current redaction :

"Penske's initiative was not backed by Ferrari works." When I wrote a fine-tuned sentence : "As of today it's impossible to know to what extent Penske's initiative was backed by Ferrari works."

This was leaving room for some doubt. No source against no source who's wrong ?

Well. Cut and paste, and in French, and with some typos. Dig it boys and girls, with your bots and guidelines :

"RE: Bien joué, la suite............

Texte : Imola 1971 en trichant un peu. C'est le classement de la 1° manche au mois de mai. C'est très intéressant. Ca contredit ma croyance selon laquelle Ferrari n'avait pas fait courir de 512 d'usine en 1971. Donc Ferrari a engagé une 512M d'usine dans une course sans grande importance en 1971 quelques mois avant le Mans. Mais pourquoi faire ? Peu être pour tester l'ensemble moteur/boite spécial qui aurait été livrées à Penske mais que Penske a refusé d'utiliser. Ca semble probable non ?

En tout cas une raison de plus pour ne plus s'emmerder sur Wikipedia. Ma formulation prudente du genre "Il n'est pas impossible que l'initiative privée de Roger Penske ait reçu un certain soutien de l'usine." a été remplacée par "L'initiative de Penske était totalement privée sans aucun soutien de l'usine."...

Original Email -----------------

De : dominique Date : 13 févr. 2008, 19:47

Cela chauffe...................

Original Email -----------------

De : Eric Date : 13 févr. 2008, 19:03

Plutôt Mugello... Pas loin de Maranello.

Original Email -----------------

De : dominique Date : 13 févr. 2008, 18:13

1. 22 Arturo Merzario / I Ferrari 512M 1010 SEFAC Ferrari 60 1:35:34,000 1. 1:33,420 2. 10 Chris Craft / GB McLaren M8E Chevrolet 80-01 Ecurie Evergreen 60 1:36:10,100 2. 1:35,070 3. 11 Leo Kinnunen / SF Porsche 917 Spyder 01-021 A.A.W. Racing Team 60 1:36:10,600 10. 1:40,730 4. 28 Teodoro Zeccoli / I Alfa Romeo T33/3 Autodelta Spa 60 1:37:54,600 "

Well the English Wikipedia, is mostly an American Wikipedia. Ruled by those who have "too much of"...

Keep on boys and girls... Have a good time masturbating yourselves.. I love you all... But goodbye Wikipedia...

Je vais écrire ailleurs en Français et pour des francophones. Bises partout et léchouilles là ou vous en avez envie, si vous aimez et à condition que ce soit propre. Salut au Robot et bises sur le microprocesseur. Ericd (talk) 03:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

French people

Hello Ericd. You have shown interest in the French people article at some point, you are now invited to participate in a vote for the French personalities to be included in the French people infobox. Regards - Wikigi | talk to me | 11:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appendix J to the international sporting code

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Appendix J to the international sporting code, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 11:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid Bot, stupid deletion, stupid notability criterion. Appendix J is the primary source for all motorsports regulations. Keep on and good luck to Wikipedia. Ericd (talk) 00:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bogart.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Bogart.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media 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. Ricky81682 (talk) 03:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey request

Hi,
I need your help. I am working on a research project at Boston College, studying creation of medical information on Wikipedia. You are being contacted, because you have been identified as an important contributor to one or more articles.

Would you will be willing to answer a few questions about your experience? We've done considerable background research, but we would also like to gather the insight of the actual editors. Details about the project can be found at the user page of the project leader, geraldckane. Survey questions can be found at geraldckane/medsurvey. Your privacy and confidentiality will be strictly protected!

The questions should only take a few minutes. I hope you will be willing to complete the survey, as we do value your insight. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Professor Kane if you have any questions.

Thank You, BCeagle0312 (talk) 15:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ed White spacewalk.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ed White spacewalk.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media 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. Papa November (talk) 23:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NowCommons: File:Suspension bridge-panoramic.jpg

File:Suspension bridge-panoramic.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Severn bridge-panoramic.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Severn bridge-panoramic.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 16:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Church Sainte Jeanne d'Arc

Salut EricD, je ne sais si tu est sur nice, mais tes photos m'ont laissé penser que tu étais amateur de l'architecture de l'église Sainte Jeanne d'Arc, et je te laisse ce message pour te prévenir qu'elle est en train d'ètre repeinte. je pens qu'il faudra encore quelques mois avant que ce soit terminé, mais je peut te tenir informer une foi les travaux achevés.

Amicalement,

Billybug (talk) 21:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hotel-Regina-1.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Hotel-Regina-1.jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers. If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nice-Jeanne-d-Arc-by-night.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Nice-Jeanne-d-Arc-by-night.jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers. If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bokeh.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Bokeh.jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers. If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:File:Steam Locomotive.jpg

This file was moved to Commons from English Wikipedia, but some description information may have got lost in the process.

As you are noted as the original uploader, or in the history for the file, it would be appreciated if you could help in reconstructing this information.

Please also consider checking Commons for other media that you may have uploaded locally, but which was subsequently transferred.

Special:Log for uploads can help in this.

Thanks for you assistance and keep uploading 'free' media :)Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:NosferatuShadow-ENLARGED.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:NosferatuShadow-ENLARGED.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. DreamGuy (talk) 15:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:NosferatuShadow-ENLARGED.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:NosferatuShadow-ENLARGED.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 19:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rockfang (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Facel.png

⚠

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Ericd! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 2 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

Marc Riboud - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Jean-Baptiste Ouédraogo - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 05:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Test Black.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Test Black.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 13:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was a full black picture (R:0, V:0, B:0)to test the blackness of our monitors. It came in some discussion about "to dark or to clear ?". Thanks for deleting it. I will claim some copyright on pure black on the Internet and get immensely rich. ;-) Ericd (talk) 19:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Ericd (talk) 22:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Starlette-detail.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Starlette-detail.jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's getting more and more stupid...

Notice about merger discussion

As one of the main contributors to the Renault 5 Turbo I would like to let you know that this merger discussion is taking place here just in case you want to participate.-Mariordo (talk) 21:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lens Flare.jpg needs authorship information.

Dear uploader:

The media file you uploaded as File:Lens Flare.jpg appears to be missing information as to its authorship (and or source), or if you did provide such information, it is confusing for others trying to make use of the image.

It would be appreciated if you would consider updating the file description page, to make the authorship of the media clearer.

Although some images may not need author information in obvious cases, (such where an applicable source is provided),authorship information aids users of the image, and helps ensure that appropriate credit is given (a requirement of some licenses).

If you created this media yourself, please consider explicitly including your user name, for which:{{subst:usernameexpand|Ericd}} will produce an appropriate expansion,

or the {{own}} template..

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I am the author of this picture. I've been travelling to the moon with my Citroën 2CV.

Well use your brain please. The source is NASA, US govt. agency of course.

As a photographer I've worked in the pasts to enforce respect of authors rights on Wikipedia. I did'nt expect it will lead to that kind of stupidity. Wikipedians were pionneers in the past. Now they're mostly cops and lawyer.

Ericd (talk) 13:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Research survey invitation

Greetings Ericd-

My name is Randall Livingstone, and I am a doctoral student at the University of Oregon, studying digital media and online community. I am posting to invite you to participate in my research study exploring the work of Wikipedia editors who are members of WikiProject: Countering Systemic Bias. The online survey should take 20 to 25 minutes to complete and can be found here:

https://oregon.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_cSHzuwaQovaZ6ss

Your responses will help online communication researchers like me to better understand the collaborations, challenges, and purposeful work of Wikipedia editors like you. In addition, at the end of the survey you will have the opportunity to express your interest in a follow-up online interview with the researcher.

This research project has been reviewed and approved by the Wikimedia Research Committee as well as the Office for Protection of Human Subjects at the University of Oregon. For a detailed description of the project, please visit its Meta page. This survey is voluntary, and your confidentiality will be protected. You will have the choice of using your Wikipedia User Name during the research or creating a unique pseudonym. You may skip any question you choose, and you may withdraw at any time. By completing the survey, you are providing consent to participate in the research.

If you have any questions about the study, please contact me via my Talk Page (UOJComm) or via email. My faculty advisor is Dr. Ryan Light. If you have any questions regarding your rights as a research participant, please contact the Office for Protection of Human Subjects at the University of Oregon.

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,

Randall Livingstone School of Journalism & Communication University of Oregon UOJComm (talk) 03:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:May 68 poster 1.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:May 68 poster 1.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free 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 tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:Sainte Jeanne d'Arc-1-large.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Sainte Jeanne d'Arc-1-large.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free 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 tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MGA73 (talk) 18:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Sainte Jeanne d'Arc de nuit-large.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Sainte Jeanne d'Arc de nuit-large.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck you.

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Bentley SI Continental Fastback Coupe Mulliner - crop.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 13:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another one of your uploads, File:Carla-Bley.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 15:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another one of your uploads, File:Cimiez monastery in Nice.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another one of your uploads, File:Cimiez-new.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:40, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another one of your uploads, File:Cimiez monastery in Nice, France.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:43, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

VIM listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect VIM. Since you had some involvement with the VIM redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 05:42, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Simplified pulsejet1a.png listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Simplified pulsejet1a.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:15, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sainte Jeanne d'Arc-1-large.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Sainte Jeanne d'Arc-1-large.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Still camera

The article Still camera has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:REDUNDANTFORK with camera.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Qono (talk) 21:21, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Anglocentrism" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Anglocentrism. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 15#Anglocentrism until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hildeoc (talk) 15:39, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Group (auto racing)

The article Group (auto racing) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unnecessary, orphaned proto-dabpage

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]