Hi, you claim that "International law requires for combatant identification and copyrighting rank insignias violates international law.". Which law is this "international law"? Thuresson12:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are many, but a notable ones are the en:Geneva Conventions. The issue is covered under "combatant identification". Anything restricting combatant/non-combatant identification (such as copyrighting them) is prohibited. The Red Cross and Red Crescent are also covered in a similar manner.
Thank you for a quick answer. I'm afraid I can't find any information about this anywhere, including www.genevaconventions.org. Would you mind pointing me in the right direction, eg. which of the Geneva conventions or perhaps a different convention? Thuresson21:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for having patience with me. Since the template claims that "international law" requires something, the template itself or the talk page should clarify which law this is. If this is not possible, the template should not be used any more. Thuresson01:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am no expert, but I do not think there is anything spesific about copyrights of rank insignias mentioned on international treaties as it is something very trivial. Countries are required to make this info freely avalible. NATO countries for instance are actualy expected to inform the central body of any change to the rank insinias.
I do not want to bug a "millitary lawyer" unless it is absolutely necesary. I'll however inquire it through other channels.
Although you've been bold in trying to implement a new structure for the COM:DEL page, I don't like the fact you archived everything, even not yet closed debates. Therefore I've reverted your edits. I agree that the current structure is hard to work with, but your move was a little too bold for my taste. By archiving not yet closed debates, you take them out of sight and that'll probably mean they are never looked at again. Cheers, NielsF23:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand this. I cant even load the page (properly) let alone discuss anything. All I did was move debates to the sub pages. The backlog, link clearly indicates further discussion is taking place.
Do as you wish but I'd like to note the "structure" I implimented had taken me several hours. I just like to point out I am less than happy. And current structure is imposible to work with.
And I am less than happy as well. The point is I couldn't do anything other than revert because I tried to encompass most of your changes, working for about half an hour, except the moving of the unclosed debates, but then I had a browser crash trying to save because of the huge size of the page. Becoming disheartened I just reverted...which I agree might've been a bit too blunt. I like the general idea, but don't like treating closed and unclosed debates exactly the same, the use of the backlog link is absolutely unclear to me as it might well be for other non-en.wikipedia users. I'm sorry that I've wasted your work, but discussion about the structure to implement is still well underway; although I appreciate your effort, it might have been better to announce it more beforehand so it could be discussed. Please do not copy back this sort of stuff to my talk page, just a notice (I answered) is enough, as I like to keep discussion in one place. But maybe it's better to talk about this on Commons talk:Deletion requests, don't you agree? NielsF23:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see. Sorry I am a bit fatigued by some unrelated nonsense, its not right for me to explode on you.
Actualy your response points the need to break the pages apart. ;) Furthermore it is posible to include both the august and july template (though thats more of an overkill)
