Talk:Black Mesa Research Facility

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Apache helicopter seen taking off in the beginning might have been the administrator ( Dr.Breen ) escaping the facility and thus saving his own skin knowing what's about to happen.

And your source is...? CABAL 03:22, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Practically speaking, the character Dr. Breen probably had not been envisioned by Mark Laidlaw at the time that map was made during Half-Life 1's development.

You're wrong. The games mentions a lot an "Administrator" - although probably Laidlaw hadn't imagined Dr. Breen, he knew there was a "big boss", who at the time was kept mysterious. Some even believed the G-Man was the Administrator.

I'm adding a bit about the Military Base in Black Mesa. Throughout the game, and in Opposing Force, its pretty clear that there is some kind of military installation a short while away from the complex. Heck, even the signs in the original game actually say "Black Mesa Military Installation"

For the record, I disagree with the "soldiers storm the complex within minutes" evidence. The soldiers' first appearance is a scripted event dependent upon the player reaching a certain point. An inexperienced player (or one simply taking the time to explore or look for hidden areas) might not see soldiers for hours after starting a game. -DynSkeet (talk) 12:28, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

you could be right. but with how big of a complex it is it could take them a wile to get deep enough inside to see you.(just something to think about) (Chardrc 21:47, 15 August 2005 (UTC))

also the rail system is still used or it is hinted that it is sence in the traning for securitygards in blue shift they teach you how to use the trains. not sure if we should make note of this or not so can someone conferm.(Chardrc 21:51, 15 August 2005 (UTC))

At the risk of sounding like a nerd, I'm removing the references to Half-Life:Decay, as it isnt part of the official story Rusty2005 21:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Why remove the references to Half Life: Decay, as you say they are not apart of the official storyline. What do you mean by that. Is it becuase it is on a different port, Playstation 2. If it's not apart of the official storyline, tell me this. Why was Dr. Gina Cross seen carrying the Xenite Sample GG-3883 on the security cameras in Half Life: Blue Shift. Why did no more Xen life-forms materialse in Black Mesa, after the events of the Resonance Reversal. You also once said "how do we know that that is the transit hub". It says so in the game iself. "This train is inbound from the area 8 Topside dormitories to the central transit hub in area 9". As far as i remember a sign above the security station also stated this. All of the events in Half Life: Decay corresponds to that of the other 3 games. Rosenberg was placed in that container in the Freigt Yard, and was seen here again in Blue: Shift. You also removed, the information on the Rocket Test Labs, Advanced Biological Research Laboratory & the Gamma Complex, why, the first two i mentioned, were the main parts of the Facility seen in the Half Life chapters: On A Rail & Questionable Ethics. You once removed the information on the Level 1 Main Facility Entrance, because "it was not seen in Blue Shift". However i think i can remember correctly that you added info on the Area 7 Recreational Facilities and you stated yourself that "it was not seen in the game", so why delete someone elses work, when you added the same sort of information yourself. The article is on the Black Mesa Research Facility, and about the Facility itself, not about the games or the official storyline. This means that any information that is regarded as cannon should be allowed to be placed on the article and Half Life: Decay is cannon.

- Ok, calm down. Sorry for my mistake, I was under the impression that Decay was a user-created mod and not an official game from Valve. Thanks for correcting me on that. My mistake, sorry! Won't happen again :-) While we're on the subject, I don't suppose you could capture a couple screenshots from Decay for the page? WOuld be handy! Rusty2005 16:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

- Hey mate, yeah i just wanted to apologise for the way i sort of expressed myself, i guess i did go over the top, sorry...won't happen again. About those screenshots, i simply just read up about Half Life: Decay, i actually don't own it, and i'm not sure if there's much around on the net...but i'll try look for some Brad92 1:54, 13 December 2005

- - I've got a copy of Half-Life on Dreamcast which has Decay. I can try grabbing some screenshots from the key scenes (like that bloke in the wheelchair). zozart 16:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

- - - Decay is an official level pack for Half-Life 1 for PS2. Gearbox Software made it. Some fans are trying to convert Decay levels to Half-Life 1 PC.

Note: Seriously guys I wasn't expecting people like you here. I <3 all Half-Life fans on the world. Hoorah!

That would be great if you could zozart! Rusty2005 13:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

1 Redemption
2 Incongruities
3 More screenshots?
4 "Are able to storm the facility within minutes"
5 Composite Black Mesa map?
6 Ordnance Storage Facility
7 "Inspiration"
8 About the images
9 Which images to keep

[edit] Redemption

I have reverted the addition of the section only seen in Redemption because, although bundled with a certain Half-Life pack, it is unlikely to be considered canon by Valve in relation to the storyline of Half-Life. Nufy8 00:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, just because it's not in the offical storyline, which is only the part seen in Half-Life as all others are made by differnet developers, doesn't mean that it shouldn't be included in the article. Someone may want to devide the information into "Official" for games released by Valve and "Unofficial" for fan-made mods.

The problem is that most sections in fan-made mods are not notable; Wikipedia fiction details what is canon in a work, and leaves out fan fiction (in this case, a fan-created storyline involving sections of Black Mesa). Nufy8 03:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incongruities

Does anyone know why there are health machines, presumably designed to interface to HEV suits, prominently dispersed through office areas (there's a prominent example in the 2nd screenshot in the screenshot section) and elsewhere, not just the labs? Aside from the obvious (gameplay). Or maybe the office workers, in their underground warrens and watched over 24/7 by armed guards, need some serious pharmaceuticals ... or maybe those papercuts are real nasty?

Well if I was a hundred feet below ground working with a rusty Cold War stapler and eating from those grimy cafeterias, I'd feel safer with a first aid kit nearby ;-) Rusty2005 15:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- What I don't undersantd is, why don't Barneys and scientists use said first aid kits? If they can't, then there's no excuse for them being there because there are medkits such as the kind you find in crates scattered about.
  - Actually, one of the Barneys is seen attempting to save himself by using the said kit. Unfortunately, he dies before he reaches it (after the Resonance Cascade, at the airlock to the cooling sector).Mikael GRizzly 13:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More screenshots?

Been considering including several more screenshots from both the Opposing Force and Blue Shift, as there are several more unique locales, namely, the following:

Opposing Force

Large Biodome observation area
Modernized Hydrofauna Studies Laboratories
A heavily damaged cargo area
Large underground furnaces
Office space embedded within cave, with an old rail line at the side/Meeting room
Level 4 Storage Unit (images are very dark)

Blue Shift

Drainage Canal
Freight Warehouse
Train Yards (turntable area)
Section A-17 Prototype Laboratories
Older models of the HEV charger and first aid station in the Prototype Laboratories
Lobby of Area 3 Security Facilities
Black Mesa South access tunnel
Shooting range
The Mesa Times newspaper, indicating that the research facility has its own newspaper
Map of tram routes, providing a list of facility names

All in all, I have 45 images covering the mentioned locations, but I can cut it down to 16. Comments? ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 18:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC) ╫

That would definitely be useful. Right now for the reader it's hard to piece together how things fit within BMRF. Veritas Panther 05:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds a good idea! I think we should stick to pictures of Black Mesa before the Incident. What do others think? Rusty2005 16:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

It's rather limited in scope. Obviously the number of areas that could be explored is limited at that time. ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 17:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC) ╫

[edit] "Are able to storm the facility within minutes"

I removed a sentence from the article saying that the military was able to storm the Black Mesa facility "within minutes of the resonance cascade" as this is not correct. There's an entire level in Half-Life: Decay dedicated to reaching the surface and then bringing Dr. Rosenberg to a radio to contact the military. Shortly after that, there's a dramatic scene where dozens of apaches fly overhead, assumingly storming Black Mesa then. Depending on how fast you play Decay, this could take a variable amount of time from when the resonance cascade occurs and when the military finally arrives. However, the time it takes for them to arrive is far from a few minutes after the disaster. They even had to be contacted by radio first before they came. MarphyBlack 02:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

If this is true then nice work mate. Veritas Panther 08:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Composite Black Mesa map?

Perhaps a more complete picture of Black Mesa could be formed by combining all of Half-Life, Opposing Force, and Blueshift's maps of Black Mesa together?

Of course, there always exists the problem that map sections overlap or don't join together properly.

With todays' multi-gigabyte workstations and powerful GPUs, would it even be possible to have all of the maps in memory (in something like 3DS) at the same time and generate a render of the Black Mesa facility?

W3bbo 23:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I've compiled an overview of Black Mesa, but only from Half-Life. You were right about the overlapping sections :P Unfortunately I don't have any time to create maps from OP4 and BS so somebody else has to do that.

I put it under the Size section.

--Sterd 17:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Great work! However, could you put the original psd file with layers online as well? Might help someone who wants to continue working on it. Thanks,

--Devnevyn 19:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ordnance Storage Facility

Just to add my two cents, I edited the entry on the aforementioned facility due to it's inconsistency with the games. The OF ordnance storage facility is located near the Lambda Sector - right. But there is another one located not far away from the entrance to the Lambda Complex, one in which Gordon navigates through the explodorynth. Given the fact, that Half-Life is the first game in the series, this might cause confusion as to which is which. Additionally, the reference to the Black Ops "cleaning it out" was also removed. I don't think a black op team of commandos would clear out a facility full of ordnance (and there is no evidence there was any within), as there is no sane reason to do so.

Additionally, the truck within the facility in OF was, at least for me, unloaded, not loaded with missile parts. Besides, missiles in storage are not outfitted with nuclear warheads, to the best of my knowledge. Mikael GRizzly 13:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Inspiration"

"Could be based", "could be inspired", "could be", "could be". That's all it says there. Really, Wikipédia is about facts, not speculation. I say we take it out.

I've edited the section, tidying it up and making it sound less speculative. Rusty2005 00:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About the images

Geni has removed several images from the article claiming that they do not meet WP:FUC. I highly disagree with this. I do understand the concern of keeping a limited number of images in any one page, but to arbitrarily remove everything from the bottom half of the article (And then immediately add the "orphaned fair use" template on all of them to boot) is probably the worst way to go about doing that. These images are clearly depicting very significant areas seen in the games, which is part of the fair use criteria. I believe that the images should be reinstated for now, at which point a consensus of which images are the most necessary to be kept can be made. Specifically, the test chamber and the hydroelectric dam are both substantially important locations (The images of both of which have been removed by Geni). MarphyBlack 02:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

After reading Rusty's talk page, it seems that Geni removed all the images without any consideration whatsoever to the value they added to the article, declaring all of them "decorative" without much reasoning to support that assertion. Again, I realize that the article did have a lot of images, but it would definitely be a bit more proper to consider the importance of each image beforehand instead of simply wiping half of them away in one fell swoop. To delete the image of the test chamber, quite possibly the most crucial locale within the entire game series (Being the place where the catalyst that started the entire disaster and sequence of events in games to come originates), shows that the person obviously isn't very familiar with the topic. The decision on what images to remove should be done far less haphazardly. MarphyBlack 02:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Which image currently on the page would you say is least important?Geni 04:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The removal of the "Additional screenshots" section was completely justified, it's a gallery of fair use images and it's using "fair use" far too excessively. no more than a few images should be used in "featured areas", as the section is quite large. Space them out a little. The most significant images that contribute would be the Test chamber before, the dam, and the Lambda core. Stick in the after shot of the test chamber if you want, and place the images next to each respective section. - Zero1328 _Talk? 04:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

As I said before, I am very aware that there were many images in the article. However, I am quite annoyed by the fact that over half of them were indiscriminately removed without even the slightest hint of warning. I don't think there's much justification for such an action. To claim that this is justified would be assuming that the regular editors of this article must be far too thick-headed to come up with their own decisions as to which images should be kept and which can be deleted. I, personally, would be plenty happy to oblige to such a request that the number of images in this article should lessened severely, along with removing the gallery entirely. Of course, it would far more courteous to discuss this other editors so a collective consensus can be made. However, the removed images are prone to deletion right now. According to the orphaned fair use template, they have about six days left until deletion. I'm not about to test this limit, though. I believe that Geni has seriously compromised the integrity of the article and has now unceremoniously dropped the burden of salvaging it onto the regular editors, and along with a time limit just to make things that more difficult. MarphyBlack 18:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:OWN, WP:BOLD. The gallary has been there for the whole of this year so you've had plently of time to discuss it's removal. Now there are currently seven images in the article. I view that as unreasonably high but have other things to worry about so for the time being it would simply be a matter of decideing what the 7 most useful images are (don't think this gives you the "right" to 7 fair use images it does not).

now once you have done that we can look at strengthening the article and the fair use case. Lets look at the first sentance of the second paragraph

"The Black Mesa facility is built over several decommissioned missile silo complexes constructed during the 1950s, which have been converted into a vast civilian institute for the research of every conceivable scientific discipline."

Ok problems. First see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) but there is a second one. Now you can't copyright facts. But you can copyright fiction. The upshot of which is that Valve Corporation have at least some of the copyright on that sentence so as well as "fair use" images you have "fair use" text which would rather weaken any fair use case.Geni 01:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

"The gallary has been there for the whole of this year so you've had plently of time to discuss it's removal."

The concern has never been brought up before. Of course there could have been a discussion if someone had actually brought it up before this time. I have no idea why you are citing WP:OWN unless you are referring to yourself. I am not claiming ownership of this article, but I am not sure on how knowledgeable you are on this topic. The Black Mesa Research Facility is a vital location to the Half-Life series, being the primary place of action for the first game, three expansion packs, and it continues to be referenced in the sequels. It's not surprising that a lot of images came about simply due to the vastness of the subject. Saying that seven images is "unreasonably high" is a matter of opinion. There is nothing according to the official policy that states there is a maximum number of images that can be used. Again, I completely understand the policy on keeping the number of images low, but this is not a simple subject, nor is it a small or short article by any means. As of now, it looks like the article has been vandalized with half of the media missing. I'm also not sure why you are bringing up the first sentence and saying that it is "fair use text". It is definitely not "fair use text" since Valve has never used any such statement to describe the ingame location at all. If you're claiming plagiarism or possibly copyright violations on any of the text in this article, you'd be quite mistaken. Anyway, if you believe there are weaknesses with the article, let's please deal with them one at a time. I am now mainly concerned about the images, which should now have about five days left to live, more or less. MarphyBlack 02:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no limit because we know people would abbuse it in thinking that thet had the right to x number of fair use images. moveing on to length Watchmen is longer and has exactly 2 fair use images. V for Vendetta (film) is also longer and has only 5. Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope is twice the length and has 6. So if we were purely baseing it on article length then we would include 2-3 images.

moveing on to "fair use text". This is a slightly less well known area of law and a bit tricky to explain but Valve own the half-life universe. Perhaps some partical examples. You could not use Black Mesa as the setting in a film without permission from valve. Valve could sue anyone writeing fan fiction involveing Black Mesa. Following on from that Valve could sue anyone writeing fan description of Black Mesa. Now assumeing you don't own a major media company you are now thinking something along the lines of "that's crazy". Perhaps it is. Fortenetly for the future of wikipedia and not getting sued for dreaming there is. It involves following the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) which allows you to use the "you can't copyright facts" loophole.Geni 03:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Which images to keep

I have compiled a list of which images I believe should be kept along with a rationale. Of course I encourage other editors to voice their opinions as well, but preferably before many of the images are deleted.

Keep

Hl bmlogo.png – Logo of the facility, seen numerous times throughout the games.
Black Mesa entrance AYool.jpg – One of the first sights seen in the original game. Depicts the facility before the disaster.
Halflife6.JPG – Shows the personnel facilities, specifically some sort of food court, that greatly depicts the "civilian life" of the facility. Also, this screenshot is from Blue Shift, and it doesn't hurt to represent the facility using the expansion packs as well.
Test chamber AYool.jpg – The test chamber. A definite keep for obvious reasons.
HL BMRF HydroelectricDam.jpg – The hydroelectric dam. Significant location that is seen in the original game as well as the expansion pack Opposing Force.
Halflife7.JPG – Depicts the science team in action. Ideal for the article's "Employees" section.
HL BMRF OfficeComplex.jpg – Depicts the 1950's office areas.
HL BMRF NewTramInterior.jpg – The ever ubiquitous trams.
HL BMRF OldRailSystem.jpg – The disused rail system is quite important to the story. There's even a specific portion during the hazard course training that pertains to the rail trams.

Possible

HL BMRF BlastPit&Tentacles.jpg – The Blast Pit is a very notable location in the original game (A whole chapter revolves around this one area). I'm on the fence on this one.
HL BMRF LaunchFacility.jpg – The rocket is a central plot point to the story, and this does depict an outdoor area (Not many of which exist), but I'm on the fence on this one as well.
HL BMRF PortalToXen.jpg – The final portal to Xen is a pretty important event in the original game, and this area also appears in Opposing Force, but I don't believe this image is entirely necessary.
Halflife27.jpeg – (Moved to Possible) The biodomes do a good job representing just what kind of the secret research the facility was undertaking. How nefarious.
HL BMRF BiodomeLobby.jpg – (Moved to Possible) Does a good job depicting the military's takeover of the facility, specifically this entrance to the biodomes.
Black Mesa Research Facility HL Map.jpeg – I really like this image, but it doesn't represent the facility that well. I think it could be externally hosted and linked somewhere in the article, however.

Delete

So there you go. I think these images (Under "Keep", I mean) do a very fair job of sufficiently representing the facility from all the games (Minus Decay) and is a quite reasonable amount in respect to the length of this article. MarphyBlack 03:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

11 is unaceptably high. if you want that many take it too Wikipedia talk:Fair use. I would suggest 5. 2 of significant locations. 2 to represent the difference between the original and the HD pack and 1 for other.Geni 04:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Eleven is "unacceptably high"? According to who? Where is this rule stated? Looking at Half-Life 2, a featured article, it contains ten fair use images. Although slightly longer, I don't see anyone complaining that ten images is "unacceptably high". Eleven isn't that much of a jump. Also, there are no differences in what the levels in Half-Life look like with and without the high definition pack. Edit: I have now cut down to what I believe should be kept to only nine images. MarphyBlack 04:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

It will be delt with in time. Still if that article size to image ratio was followed this article would 6 "fair use" images.Geni 04:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I suppose a reduction of images for the reasons given is justified, and redundancies are a definite no-no. The fair use policy states that fair use images should be used in a limited number, but with an sufficient amount that can improve the article optimally; these images were added at a time when I believed galleries of fair use images were still OK. But the recent purges of excessive fair use images based on this fair use policy, has me with second thoughts. As much as I don't like to hamper the reading experience of readers who lack imagination (specifically, those who can't translate words to pictures), guidelines are guidelines. I say we stick to a 8-or-less images regiment, distributing all situations in the game into this number; nothing more. ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 10:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC) ╫

But the question is: Which eight? I have narrowed my personal propositions of which to keep down to nine. Perhaps you have a different opinion on which should be kept? MarphyBlack 18:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, we'll keep the following:

Black Mesa entrance AYool.jpg. It can fill in for Hl bmlogo.png as the logo is visible in the background.
Test chamber AYool.jpg. Definately a key location.
Halflife7.JPG and Halflife6.JPG show employees at work and rest.
HL BMRF OfficeComplex.jpg, an example of an office environment.
HL BMRF NewTramInterior.jpg, a crucial location at the start and end of the game.
HL BMRF OldRailSystem.jpg, a polar opposite of the new tram. I'm not really sure about keeping this one though, because it would be redundant when another image that I'm thinking about is uploaded onto the Half-Life article.
Halflife27.jpeg, to be replaced by HL BMRF Biodome observation area.jpg. Offers a mix of Xen presense and study of the border world's habitat by the facility. However, due to presentation issues, I've uploaded another version that depicts Xen-like terrain, and live Xen creatures.
HL BMRF BiodomeLobby.jpg. Has soldiers in a modernized portion of the facility.

Technically, that makes nine, but with HL BMRF OldRailSystem.jpg most likely to be replaced by an image to be illustrated in the Half-Life article, that makes eight.

An outdoor location, specifically, the hydro dam, has been depicted in Halflife ingame.jpg, which is one of the first screenshots shown in the Half-Life article. So we don't need another image of the same location. HL BMRF BiodomeLobby.jpg also offers a glimpse of the surface, so it's sufficient. ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 14:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC) ╫

Tell me if I'm missing some obscure and uncharted convention, but who says we're only allowed to have eight images in the article? How many other articles have more than eight images? I don't see why we have to start arbitrarily deleting images (some of which I spent a fair amount of time editing and uploading) just because one editor says so. Rusty2005 22:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

US law and wikipedia fair use policy. If you wish to disspute this try Wikipedia talk:Fair use.Geni 02:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Yesterday's featured article, Salvador Dalí, contains eight fair use images. Today's featured article, on Eagle Scouts, contains over twenty fair use images. Nine video game screenshots, especially for an article this size, is far within the acceptable limits. All individual images meet the proper requirements for fair use. Again, unless of course you can name the policy that says that there is a limit to the number of images we are allowed to use. MarphyBlack 02:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I have already explained to you why such a policy does not directly exist.Geni 03:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

No you haven't, you've just that "11 is unacceptably high" and keep pointing us to the Fair Use Policy page, which doesn't seem to outline any restrictions on how many images can be used. Obviously, one of these screenshots is within the copyright and legal boundaries, so surely they all are. And that doesn't explain why, on other pages, you have wiped out images that were clearly fair use. Rusty2005 13:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

"Obviously, one of these screenshots is within the copyright and legal boundaries, so surely they all are." no that directly conflicts with the third principle of US fair use law. The reason no hard limit is set in policy is that we know that certian people would take the view that they had a right to that number of images. "wiped out images that were clearly fair use" example please? Incerdentaly Rusty2005 you appear to be a subject of the crown? And yet you are uploading images and claiming "fair use". Problem is that no such principle exists under any of the UK's legal systems. The closest would be "Fair dealing" which is far more restricitve.Geni 14:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

If you have a problem with my interpirtation of wikipedia's fair use policy please take it to Wikipedia_talk:Fair_use.Geni 14:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Very well Geni, if you wish to be obstuctive about this, then do so. If you wish to make pompous remarks about my nationality, while hiding behind pages of legal jargon, then do so. Your goal on Wikipedia appears to consist solely of deleting images and razing articles which people have made a real effort to improve. If you wish to do so, go ahead. I am nevertheless pursuing a complaint about your actions, I think that you are totally out of line and that your interpretation of Wikipedia's international boundaries is far too harsh. I still would like to know though, where in law does it state that 11 images is unacceptably high? And additionally, I don't believe you are that familiar with British law. Rusty2005 00:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I live in the UK some I am somewhat familiar with the various legal systems although not so much with the Scottish one (however I don’t think there is much difference when it comes to copyright law). Courts have always been a bit hesitant to draw lines in the sand when it comes to amount of material you are allowed to use (this gives them what might generaly be known as job security). The amount allowed generaly depends on the context of use and the material's importance to the overal work (and sometimes it appears how luck you are with the judge).Geni 01:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

We're not in a court of law. And I don't believe that you are any more familiar with our country's law than I am. But anyway, that's not the issue. No-one has complained about these images until you suddenly binned the lot, without consulting any of us. Why are you so committed to deleting images all over the encyclopedia? No-one has complained about the images, but from what I can see, a lo of people have complained about your habit of deleting without any notice. I uploaded these images in order to improve the quality of the article, and no-one complained before. The least you could have done would have been to initiate a discussion, but you didn't even bother to do that. You seem to have little purpose here besides deleting images which we believe fall within the remit of Fair Use. Why is this? Our interpretation of Fair Use is just as valid as yours. And yet you haven't given a single good reason as to why this number of images is "unacceptable". Rusty2005 01:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

People did complain a little. That is how I found out about the page. While I have don't know how good your knowlage of english and welsh law is I suspect I may have an edge on copyright but no matter. Surfice to say that going by Lewis v King you may wish to keep UK law in mind when editing. Or not it really rather depends on how solid you think that judgement is.

Anyway now we have the FUD out the way lets move on to the issue of image deletion. In short I'm committed to free content. So is wikipedia. Fair use conflicts with this. On the other hand fair use is imposible to avoid. so the aim is to keep it to a mininium.

I do more than deleting images I upload them as well. I also write articles about canals.

If you look at WP:FUC 3 "The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible". You think your iunterpretation of Fair Use is just as valid as mine but have failed to take it to Wikipedia talk:Fair use.Geni 17:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/l/a/Talk%7EBlack_Mesa_Research_Facility_52dd.html"