User talk:Nx/Archive8

w2
You patrolled Talk:Cryonics before I could. You were faster than me. This means war. --  = w =  08:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * -- Nx  / talk 08:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What are you doing with all that code? Also I fixed the userbox formatting, I hope you don't mind. --  = w =  08:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Simplifying it. And that's not how I wanted it to appear, but userbox formatting is hopelessly broken, so thank you. -- Nx  / talk 08:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

yes I'm creating a redirect on purpose, don't change it to a direct link
I am not sure why you did that. also, how prepared are you to defend your edit after your request scrolls off recent changes? Totnesmartin (talk) 09:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Because the article is referring to technological singularity. E.g. if tech singularity gets its own article, you don't have to fix any links. Redirects exist for a reason, and they are not evil.
 * I'm not going to defend any edit on this wiki. -- Nx  / talk 10:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Minor question
Where are you getting that "please sign your comments..." thing from? It looks automated, and I'm too stupid or lazy to find it on my own. 19:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * sign. It's best to subst it. -- Nx  / talk 20:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I was just thinking that I should make a template to explain about signing, and then I read your edit comments... --  = w =  20:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

confused
what was wrong with ? Tommy0210 (talk) 23:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Like I said in the edit comment, that's not really Conservapedia's writing style. That's just 🇰🇪 -- Nx  / talk 23:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * But many, many articles are written that way... such as abortion, homosexuality, evolution, Bill Maher and many more? Tommy0210 (talk) 23:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Because those are his pet articles. There are also many Ed stubs, Andy insights etc. No point listing all their writing styles in the main article, IMO. They have their own articles for that. -- Nx  / talk 00:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * K. Does RW have a verifiability policy? I read this is not an encyclopedia but I am curious/confused. I think I'm going to have a lot of fun here.. in a good way. This site is exactly what I've been looking for. Tommy0210 (talk) 00:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * nvm... i see now. I think.. Tommy0210 (talk) 00:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * !Encyclopedia (that's programmer-talk for not an encyclopedia) means that we're not trying to compete with Wikipedia. (Personally, I think it's a waste of time to try to reinvent the wheel, but then some people enjoy writing articles about their favorite subjects, and if the wikipedia article is already done, they go to smaller wikis like RW or ASK). Fortunately WP's strict NPOV and verifiability criteria limit it (e.g. on WP you can't write original research about Conservapedia, even is you back it up with links and it's pretty obvious - unless it's a reputable third party source, it's usually out; the CP article is mostly based on outdated info from the few newspaper articles around its founding), so that leaves us with a niche. Verifiability is still a requirement (though obviously not as strict as WP), but original research is allowed and encouraged, and we probably have no notability criteria. -- Nx  / talk 00:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * kay! I'm excited! I created like 5 usernames on CP but its no fun when you're autoblocked :(.. fuck Jpatt. Tommy0210 (talk) 00:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Protect templates?
do you think it'd be okay? Tommy (talk) 12:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? Which ones? -- Nx  / talk 12:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * like the bisexuality ones from moving or so. Tommy (talk) 12:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * We don't generally do that. The only ones that are protected are high use ones which would cause huge server load if edited (we had a spambot hit template space a while ago, since then it's protected by captcha and high use templates are semiprotected), and some that have been consistent vandal/spambot targets, like . We don't get that much vandalism, and it isn't a problem to revert. -- Nx  / talk 13:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * okay Tommy (talk) 13:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

w3
Hey. Is there a way I can have the ability to patrol edits without the ability to block people? I am beating my sword to a plowshare. --  = w =  15:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure. It's done. -- Nx  / talk 15:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! That was quick. ^__________^ --  = w =  15:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

;______________;
Nx I can't edit this page. Could you unlock it for me? --  = w =  13:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You know, you are a bureaucrat... -- Nx  / talk 13:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you Nx. I think your /demo thing is cool. --  = w =  13:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

w4
Thank you thank you. I'm here all week. --  = w =  22:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

This doesn't happen enough
So, thanks for all you do for this site. You do a lot of behind-the-scenes things that most of us with no wiki-savvy couldn't do, and it is appreciated. 23:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Seconded. 02:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

An appeal for assistance.
I threw up an invite for Ratwikians to join me on Facebook for Scrabble. Anyway, I can't create games that recognize my new friends, just the old friends who had the app before I joined (this includes my wife, who was a friend before I got Scrabble, but didn't have the app herself until after). Does your computer-savviness have anything to say about this or do I simply fall into the "Screwed because the app is still in beta" category? Thanks in advance. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 15:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

How the fuck
does deleting the main page not count as vandalism? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 16:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've removed her rights for that. The purpose of the vandal bin is to slow down vandals. Right now there's no reason to do that. If/when she starts vandalizing, then you can bin her. -- Nx  / talk 16:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

stop putting that white flag thing.
it is childish and undermine the France article. Waronstupidity (talk) 22:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
For this fix. I wasn't sure how to do it, but I know in the future. 07:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Using the RW logo in an image
I'm working on a few ideas for an image to represent the shrine thing that Goonie started. In case you hadn't followed the SB discussion, it's a page for writing messages for people who've retired. Would it be okay to use the RW brain logo in an image? The main idea right now involves gravestones, and I'd like to stick the RW logo on there. I'm working with PD images, so we'd be free to attach an RW-exclusive licence on any images I produuce. [[Media:RWLogo65px.png]] would probably do the job. -- 14:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I turned over all rights to Trent, so it's him you should be asking, but I'm pretty sure it'd be okay. -- Nx  / talk 14:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Cheers, Nx. -- 14:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Choose
Is it preferable to use the parser function method? (just curious) 09:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's prettier, and it can be substed. e.g. &rarr; Lemon Jerboas --  Nx  / talk 09:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. 09:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

surely You can See the Difference here?
Do u not understod the diFference between Sexual Harrassmment and deleting posts which u dislike? i am Being subjected to Sexual Harrasmment. And I don't appreciate it. Jon (talk) 22:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Noone is forcing you to stay here and read your talk page, Marcus. -- Nx  / talk 22:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What are you Talking Aboiut I am GettiNG Sexual Harrassmmentt and u are doing nothing about it you sicko. Jon (talk) 22:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, fuck yourself & depart. 22:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Did anyone get my encoded messages? Jon (talk) 22:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Good call, sir. I'll miss Jon, but in time the wounds will heal. -- 23:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't block him from editing his talk page, so he can whine some more if he wants there, but he can't attack others on their talk pages. -- Nx  / talk 23:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, good stuff. He was spreading out a bit. -- 23:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Argh
09:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
for giving me back my username, and (late) apologies for not changing my signature immediately, but since I had nothing better to do back then, I was mildly amused by the utterly pointless argument about the metaphysical properties of my signature, however no harm was meant. Apologies also for the preceding run-on sentence. --⁠ (talk) 20:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. -- Nx  / talk 20:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

request for teh magic man
Can you make the link to the vandal brake from the block page be user-specific, as in http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Special:VandalBrake/Neveruse instead of just http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Special:VandalBrake ? &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 20:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You're the man. Sorry for not putting this in technical assistance where it technically belongs. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 21:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

stop putting that white flag thing.
it is childish and undermine the France article. Waronstupidity (talk) 22:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
For this fix. I wasn't sure how to do it, but I know in the future. 07:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Using the RW logo in an image
I'm working on a few ideas for an image to represent the shrine thing that Goonie started. In case you hadn't followed the SB discussion, it's a page for writing messages for people who've retired. Would it be okay to use the RW brain logo in an image? The main idea right now involves gravestones, and I'd like to stick the RW logo on there. I'm working with PD images, so we'd be free to attach an RW-exclusive licence on any images I produuce. [[Media:RWLogo65px.png]] would probably do the job. -- 14:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I turned over all rights to Trent, so it's him you should be asking, but I'm pretty sure it'd be okay. -- Nx  / talk 14:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Cheers, Nx. -- 14:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Choose
Is it preferable to use the parser function method? (just curious) 09:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's prettier, and it can be substed. e.g. &rarr; Lemon Jerboas --  Nx  / talk 09:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. 09:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

surely You can See the Difference here?
Do u not understod the diFference between Sexual Harrassmment and deleting posts which u dislike? i am Being subjected to Sexual Harrasmment. And I don't appreciate it. Jon (talk) 22:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Noone is forcing you to stay here and read your talk page, Marcus. -- Nx  / talk 22:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What are you Talking Aboiut I am GettiNG Sexual Harrassmmentt and u are doing nothing about it you sicko. Jon (talk) 22:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, fuck yourself & depart. 22:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Did anyone get my encoded messages? Jon (talk) 22:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Good call, sir. I'll miss Jon, but in time the wounds will heal. -- 23:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't block him from editing his talk page, so he can whine some more if he wants there, but he can't attack others on their talk pages. -- Nx  / talk 23:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, good stuff. He was spreading out a bit. -- 23:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Argh
09:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
for giving me back my username, and (late) apologies for not changing my signature immediately, but since I had nothing better to do back then, I was mildly amused by the utterly pointless argument about the metaphysical properties of my signature, however no harm was meant. Apologies also for the preceding run-on sentence. --⁠ (talk) 20:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. -- Nx  / talk 20:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

request for teh magic man
Can you make the link to the vandal brake from the block page be user-specific, as in http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Special:VandalBrake/Neveruse instead of just http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Special:VandalBrake ? &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 20:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You're the man. Sorry for not putting this in technical assistance where it technically belongs. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 21:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

So...
Is removing talk page comments and long-term banning the best way to deal with things? Are we going to use the after spending so much time trying to work it out, or continue to go all Clint Eastwood about trolls and other problems? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 16:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see the Lumpen Jacks doing anything about it. -- Nx  / talk 16:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh. Well, when did you ask them to? P.S. Over at the bar, I put in a request to set up a space. Is such a thing possible?  TheoryOfPractice (talk) 16:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Corrs image...
How is it that our use of that image to illustrate an article is fair, but Joaquin's use of images to illustrate a CP article is not? From what I understand, fair use for commentary or satire means we have to be doing something directly involved with the work itself, not the subject of the work in general--I don't see how using the image in the way which we are counts...TheoryOfPractice (talk) 12:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean it's not fair use unless we discuss the photograph itself? Even Wikipedia doesn't have such strict standards. -- Nx  / talk 12:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * From what I understand, that's what fair use means...TheoryOfPractice (talk) 13:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * IANAL, but I thought it was fair use to use a non-free photograph to illustrate the subject of the article, as long as you use a crappy quality photo etc. (and don't steal two dozen photographs for one article). If you disagree, you can start by deleting all the older images on RationalWiki which are copyright violations (including your own uploads), then you can go after new uploads. -- Nx  / talk 13:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You wanna give me a fucking writing assignment while you're at it, Ed? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 14:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I'm just telling you to stop enforcing the rules which you yourself and everyone else considers a nuisance and is ignoring. -- Nx  / talk 14:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it hasn't crossed your radar, but people HAVE been talking about making new efforts to bring our use of images into compliance. Things don't change for the better if our attitude is "nobody cares, so why should I?" I will go through the images I've uploaded and deal with those that are not properly licensed/not playing by the rules. And then I'll do the ones you have...TheoryOfPractice (talk) 15:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe it has been drowned out by the whining and accusations of trolling. -- Nx  / talk 15:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright, look, I'm sorry for getting all confrontational about this. I'm an ass. But, 1) we're on our high horse re: CP and copyright vio, so we look stupid if we do the same and 2) as Nutty (WIAL) pointed out, part of our job as admins should be to protect Trent, because it's him, not "Rationalwiki," who will get caught in the middle of anything....peace. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 15:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Please reread this and this. I'm still waiting for replies to several of my points on both pages. Until then I'm not going to care because nobody else cares.
 * But that is irrelevant. The Corrs image is a low quality scan of a promotional image, and is used to identify the subjects of the article. The fair use rationale is therefore valid. -- Nx  / talk 15:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My motivation is the same as TOP's. In reality I doubt that sticking this image is going to amount to much, but I'm conscious that I am effectively living in a house belonging to someone else, in this case Trent. Anything we can do to avoid legal hassle for him should be done. If we enter grey areas, we should have a good reason for doing so - such as when we reproduced Dembski's paper. That is defensible, both morally and legally, but I don't see how a photo of the Corrs is in the same league. We could argue fair use more easily if there were no alternatives to the image posted, but there are plenty of alternatives that could have been found by spending 30 seconds searching of searching on the web. If we really don't care about licences then I wonder why we don't adopt a public domain licence for everything we do? -- 15:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

stop putting that white flag thing.
it is childish and undermine the France article. Waronstupidity (talk) 22:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
For this fix. I wasn't sure how to do it, but I know in the future. 07:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Using the RW logo in an image
I'm working on a few ideas for an image to represent the shrine thing that Goonie started. In case you hadn't followed the SB discussion, it's a page for writing messages for people who've retired. Would it be okay to use the RW brain logo in an image? The main idea right now involves gravestones, and I'd like to stick the RW logo on there. I'm working with PD images, so we'd be free to attach an RW-exclusive licence on any images I produuce. [[Media:RWLogo65px.png]] would probably do the job. -- 14:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I turned over all rights to Trent, so it's him you should be asking, but I'm pretty sure it'd be okay. -- Nx  / talk 14:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Cheers, Nx. -- 14:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Choose
Is it preferable to use the parser function method? (just curious) 09:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's prettier, and it can be substed. e.g. &rarr; Lemon Jerboas --  Nx  / talk 09:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. 09:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

surely You can See the Difference here?
Do u not understod the diFference between Sexual Harrassmment and deleting posts which u dislike? i am Being subjected to Sexual Harrasmment. And I don't appreciate it. Jon (talk) 22:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Noone is forcing you to stay here and read your talk page, Marcus. -- Nx  / talk 22:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What are you Talking Aboiut I am GettiNG Sexual Harrassmmentt and u are doing nothing about it you sicko. Jon (talk) 22:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, fuck yourself & depart. 22:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Did anyone get my encoded messages? Jon (talk) 22:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Good call, sir. I'll miss Jon, but in time the wounds will heal. -- 23:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't block him from editing his talk page, so he can whine some more if he wants there, but he can't attack others on their talk pages. -- Nx  / talk 23:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, good stuff. He was spreading out a bit. -- 23:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Argh
09:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
for giving me back my username, and (late) apologies for not changing my signature immediately, but since I had nothing better to do back then, I was mildly amused by the utterly pointless argument about the metaphysical properties of my signature, however no harm was meant. Apologies also for the preceding run-on sentence. --⁠ (talk) 20:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. -- Nx  / talk 20:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

request for teh magic man
Can you make the link to the vandal brake from the block page be user-specific, as in http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Special:VandalBrake/Neveruse instead of just http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Special:VandalBrake ? &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 20:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You're the man. Sorry for not putting this in technical assistance where it technically belongs. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 21:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

So...
Is removing talk page comments and long-term banning the best way to deal with things? Are we going to use the after spending so much time trying to work it out, or continue to go all Clint Eastwood about trolls and other problems? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 16:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see the Lumpen Jacks doing anything about it. -- Nx  / talk 16:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh. Well, when did you ask them to? P.S. Over at the bar, I put in a request to set up a space. Is such a thing possible?  TheoryOfPractice (talk) 16:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

My apologies and my questions
I noticed that you have helped me out with my blunder with my Sandbox. Before I say anything else, I want to apologize for that. I know what my mistake was, and won't make that mistake again. So, second, thank you. But I have to add that I only learned about your action because I happened to look at the "Recent changes" - and don't take this as a complaint, rather I'm trying to clarify what happened, for my own education. TomS TDotO (talk) 18:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no need to apologize. I assumed you were going to write something and try to save it, in which case you'd be informed about the deletion. How did you get to that page, did you type &redirect=no manually after the url in the address bar? -- Nx  / talk 18:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I created a new page on my local Sandbox, then moved it to Composition and division, and only then realized that my Sandbox then had a redirect to Composition and division. I then tried to remove the redirect by editing the Sandbox with a &redirect=no, at which point I then realized that I was only making things worse and decided that the best thing was to stop digging myself in deeper. For some reason or other, I took a look at the Recent changes, where I saw your activity with the comment about my having been informed, and took that to mean that I was being told that I had given the impression of being a trouble-maker. TomS TDotO (talk) 11:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No no, that was not my intention at all, sorry for the confusion. -- Nx  / talk 11:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I just got your message about clearing my Sandbox. Thank you. That was going to be a problem for me. TomS TDotO (talk) 17:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Corrs image...
How is it that our use of that image to illustrate an article is fair, but Joaquin's use of images to illustrate a CP article is not? From what I understand, fair use for commentary or satire means we have to be doing something directly involved with the work itself, not the subject of the work in general--I don't see how using the image in the way which we are counts...TheoryOfPractice (talk) 12:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean it's not fair use unless we discuss the photograph itself? Even Wikipedia doesn't have such strict standards. -- Nx  / talk 12:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * From what I understand, that's what fair use means...TheoryOfPractice (talk) 13:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * IANAL, but I thought it was fair use to use a non-free photograph to illustrate the subject of the article, as long as you use a crappy quality photo etc. (and don't steal two dozen photographs for one article). If you disagree, you can start by deleting all the older images on RationalWiki which are copyright violations (including your own uploads), then you can go after new uploads. -- Nx  / talk 13:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You wanna give me a fucking writing assignment while you're at it, Ed? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 14:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I'm just telling you to stop enforcing the rules which you yourself and everyone else considers a nuisance and is ignoring. -- Nx  / talk 14:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it hasn't crossed your radar, but people HAVE been talking about making new efforts to bring our use of images into compliance. Things don't change for the better if our attitude is "nobody cares, so why should I?" I will go through the images I've uploaded and deal with those that are not properly licensed/not playing by the rules. And then I'll do the ones you have...TheoryOfPractice (talk) 15:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe it has been drowned out by the whining and accusations of trolling. -- Nx  / talk 15:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright, look, I'm sorry for getting all confrontational about this. I'm an ass. But, 1) we're on our high horse re: CP and copyright vio, so we look stupid if we do the same and 2) as Nutty (WIAL) pointed out, part of our job as admins should be to protect Trent, because it's him, not "Rationalwiki," who will get caught in the middle of anything....peace. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 15:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Please reread this and this. I'm still waiting for replies to several of my points on both pages. Until then I'm not going to care because nobody else cares.
 * But that is irrelevant. The Corrs image is a low quality scan of a promotional image, and is used to identify the subjects of the article. The fair use rationale is therefore valid. -- Nx  / talk 15:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My motivation is the same as TOP's. In reality I doubt that sticking this image is going to amount to much, but I'm conscious that I am effectively living in a house belonging to someone else, in this case Trent. Anything we can do to avoid legal hassle for him should be done. If we enter grey areas, we should have a good reason for doing so - such as when we reproduced Dembski's paper. That is defensible, both morally and legally, but I don't see how a photo of the Corrs is in the same league. We could argue fair use more easily if there were no alternatives to the image posted, but there are plenty of alternatives that could have been found by spending 30 seconds searching of searching on the web. If we really don't care about licences then I wonder why we don't adopt a public domain licence for everything we do? -- 15:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

stop putting that white flag thing.
it is childish and undermine the France article. Waronstupidity (talk) 22:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)