User talk:Yann: Difference between revisions

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Content deleted Content added
Line 216: Line 216:


Thanks [[User:Geo Swan|Geo Swan]] ([[User talk:Geo Swan|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 02:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks [[User:Geo Swan|Geo Swan]] ([[User talk:Geo Swan|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 02:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
:I don't have an opinion on which name should be the main one. Please change it if you think it is better. [[User:Yann|Yann]] ([[User talk:Yann#top|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 08:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 08:06, 1 June 2011

God is busy, may I help you? / Dieu est occupé, puis-je vous aider?

You can leave me a message in English or French, at the bottom. Click on the + above. Yann 22:13, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

/archives /archives_1 /archives_2 /archives_3 /archives 4 /archives 5 /archives 6 /archives 7 /archives 8 /archives 9 /archives 10 /archives 11

Photographers Blackbelt


THE PHOTOGRAPHER'S BLACKBELT
I hereby award at you this Photographers Blackbelt for your outstanding and excellent pictures.
--ComputerHotline (talk) 09:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Marble Rocks, MP, India.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good --George Chernilevsky 07:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Valued Image Promotion

Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Marble Rocks.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

Problème sur une validation d'oeuvre que vous venez de faire

Je souhaite vous contacter, mais ne suis pas encore très expert dans les procédures. Est-ce possible par mail ? J'ai demandé la supression d'une image sous copyright, et vous n'avez pas retenu cette demande. Je souhaite pouvoir vous prouver le problème, étant le détenteur des droits sur cette image. Je peux aussi vous contacter par téléphone. AJOLI

Deletion of file under afp-logo.png

This message refers to a deletion you made on January 2, 2011 at 6:53 a.m. under

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psychonaut01&diff=0&oldid=39441630

The file I wanted to use was already in wikipedia. It was in the Bavarian section of the net. According to what the person there said, the file I wanted to use did not qualify for copyright, because it did not meet the protection standards. It was void of originality, therefore it could be used. Hence, there is no copyright violation.

This person is to be found in bar.wikipedia.org under the URL

http://bar.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Kazu89

and he goes by the name "André".

--Psychonaut01 (talk) 13:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This DR

This is a DR I filed on another image by this uploader. It concerns one image the uploader uploader uploaded which you later deleted. I doubt it can be kept without OTRS...and there is none. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticed the image Minotaurasaurus_BW.jpg has been deleted. The uploader, Nobu Tamura is a highly respected paleo-artist who always publishes his own work under a Creative Commons license; I'd advise you look further into this as I highly doubt it was a copyvio. Thanks! Bob the Wikipedian (talk - contribs) 06:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I restored the image, but I think that this file needs an OTRS permission. Yann (talk) 07:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't the {{self|GFDL|cc-by-3.0}} be enough? Last I checked, self-created images don't require OTRS if released under such a free commercial use license. Bob the Wikipedian (talkcontribs) 00:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, no because 1. it is not self evident that it is a self-created work; 2. the uploader is not the creator; 3. it is already published on the Web. Yann (talk) 07:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have sent an email to Mr. Tamura at the address listed at Palaeocritti (the website the would-be offending images appear on). I'll forward you his response so it can be documented with OTRS. Bob the Wikipedian (talkcontribs) 06:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am the creator of this image and allowing its use on wikipedia. NobuTamura (talk) 06:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Email-summoning really works pretty nicely, it would seem. Looks like my work's done here, you two can sort this out. Bob the Wikipedian (talkcontribs) 06:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You just suppressed File:Affiche Cave affinage Juraflore - Fort des Rousses 01 by Line1.JPG which I uploaded some time ago.
But I was not warned, nor did I see anything on my Watchlist.
Is that normal?
Regards Liné1 (talk) 15:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, je voulais juste vérifier que dans ton process, il y avait bien une étape d'avertissement. Cordialement Liné1 (talk) 17:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yann. I noticed you correctly deleted the image File:CheetahsLogoplain.PNG as it was using the incorrect license. Would you be able to email me a copy of this file so that I can upload it to Wikipedia using the correct fair use license for logos? Many thanks, Bettia (talk) 11:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, please send me your mail address, I will send you a copy of the logo. Yann (talk) 12:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been messing around with this section, since I found it very confusing. (I hope I'm helping and not mucking it up through ignorance. You may notice that my knowledge of French is minimal.) I was looking for an article in the JPG category of volume 11 and it seems to be missing pages 760–797 (at least they're not where they seem like they ought to be). I see them on the French Wikisource, so I guess they are in the DJVU files. Should these be added to the JPG category on Commons? Or am I missing something? Thanks for help. --Robert.Allen (talk) 12:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the planches PNG files produce "Error creating thumbnail: Invalid thumbnail parameters or PNG file with more than 12.5 million pixels". Do you know whether there are plans to somehow correct these? Otherwise I will upload JPG files to replace them. (I don't know whether this error is produced by my Safari browser or the Wikipedia server.) --Robert.Allen (talk) 01:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this a (more or less intentional) bug of MediaWiki. Producing thumbnails of big PNG files require a lot of resources. Therefore it is disable if the file is more than 12.5 million pixels. So either create a JPEG or a smaller PNG file. It is important to keep the big files as archives though. Yann (talk) 06:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. It must have been frustrating to discover this after uploading so many files. I started already adding some JPGs, hoping I would not be wasting my time. Re the old files: I'm adding "other version" links from JPG to PNG and from PNG to JPG. Also, putting the too "large PNG" files into a subcategory for each volume category, and trying to remember to update the Gallery page links, and hoping this will all be OK. I was unaware of Diderot's encyclopedia until a few days ago. A lot has been done, but obviously there's always more to do. --Robert.Allen (talk) 06:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the proofreading is just started. With 17 volumes, and 18,000 pages of text, there is more to do... I think this is a direct ancestor of Wikipedia, by the spirit it was written, as well as by the extend of the subjects covered at the time. Yann (talk) 07:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SNSD Shanghai images

None of the images are photographs. This is very clear from the shitty quality of the image as well as the fact that it lacks any form of EXIF data. It is a screencap from some sort of video recording and not originally owned by the uploader. File:SNSD 00 Shanghai 2010-04-17.jpg, File:Hyoyeon Shanghai 2010-04-17.jpg, File:Jessica Shanghai 2010-04-17.jpg, File:Sunny Shanghai 2010-04-17.jpg, File:Yuri Shanghai 2010-04-17.jpg, and File:Yoona Shanghai 2010-04-17.jpg are all under this category. I don't know why you decided to untag several of them. They are clear copyvios.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you didn't explain why you want them to be deleted. Yann (talk) 09:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This file is simply the emblem of the soccer club Sociedade Esportiva Santa Maria in Brazil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maykonpaulo (talk • contribs)

Hi, Yann. Could you please tell me what the appropriate tags for this type of file would be, so that it is not deleted? I am a bit confused about the deletion. Merci beaucoup! Motstravail

Vital57

Hi,Yann Re: Elvis Presley image. user: vital57: I am a creator of the images, which are trying to uploaded. My name is Vitaliv, web site www.vitaliv.info , web page vitaliv. as I understand the main reson for deleting that I put (own work) instead of (own). I am sorry, I did as it said in explonaitions. If u realy think this is the reason for deleting my file, I will find someone who could read better then me, and I will do more portraits. In my opinion its not fair, and I haveto decide what kind of license to chose. I did {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} Tell me whats problem with this choise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vital57 (talk • contribs)

Hello, It is not clear who made this work. Beside it is probably out of scope with Wikimedia Commons. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Support

Hello, Yann. You have new messages at Rehman's talk page.
You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

asturianu  беларуская (тарашкевіца)  български  বাংলা  català  čeština  Deutsch  Deutsch (Sie-Form)  English  español  suomi  français  galego  हिन्दी  hrvatski  magyar  italiano  日本語  ქართული  македонски  മലയാളം  Plattdüütsch  Nederlands  português  română  русский  sicilianu  slovenščina  svenska  Tagalog  Türkçe  简体中文  繁體中文  +/−

Smileys

Re:Commons:Deletion requests/File:SmileyOriginal.jpg, what was your reason for deletion? The Smiley face logos cannot be copyrighted as they entered the public domain in the 60s and besides they do not have sufficient originality, e.g. see [1] - copyright and trademark are not the same. It's a pity to see the word of an editor with a probable COI taken at face value like that. Fences and windows (talk) 19:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The file was deleted by Túrelio. Please ask him. Yann (talk) 12:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merda d'artista

hi i want to delete the image until i have a answer from the foundation that have the copyright on Manzoni work.

how i can delete the photo directly?

You can't. Only admins can delete files. Yann (talk) 18:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alphonse Daudet work

I plan to proofread this book for Russian Wikisource. I need to know original French title (Russian is "Жёны артистов. Очерки нравов" (Wives of artists. Essays of morals)) and date of creation/publication. Is it collection of independent short stories or whole work? Unfortunately Google Translate on French Wikipedia/Wikisource pages about Alphonse Daudet didn't help me. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Religious pictures

You may be an expert in these discussions as you are a part of Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Lord_Ram.jpg

  1. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aravana.JPG
  2. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Guruvayurappan-1.jpg

--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 14:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only use category redirects where necessary

Your thoughts may be helpful at Commons_talk:Only_use_category_redirects_where_necessary#Changes needed to turn this into a guideline. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Taj Mahal, Agra, India edit2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments {{{3}}}

Restore request of deleted file

Hi Yann. I see you undeleted one of my files File:Masjid_Al_Haram._Mecca,_Saudi_Arabia.jpg Another one that is from Saudi was also deleted under the same pretext. Could you please Undelete Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Masjid_Nabawi._Medina,_Saudi_Arabia.jpg ?

Many thanks, -- Ali Imran Feb 13, 2010

As you well know, neither our rules nor our aim to be civil to one another allow you to arbitrarily reverse another Admins actions. If you disagree with a closure, you have three ways of dealing with it:

  1. A request on the closing Admin's talk page.
  2. Reopening the DR, including restoring the tag on the image file
  3. Entering an undeletion request

Simply reverting my action is not one of them -- I would be fully within my rights to simply delete your action -- post-closure comments can be deleted on sight.

As for this particular case, while the Al-Masjid al-Nabawi mosque is ancient, the facade and building which occupies these images is modern. The green dome of the original building can be barely be seen in the middle of one of the images. The modern building surrounds it.

If we are going to respect architect's rights anywhere, this is certainly a case where we should, as except for the green dome, virtually everything else in the images is modern.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is more a general view of the city. I don't understand how the architecte could claim a copyright on this image. Using caution doesn't mean we need to be overzealous in deleting files. Yann (talk) 13:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are we looking at the same picture? Everything in the image, except the green dome and the four or five buildings in the far back -- everything -- is the modern mosque. But that is beside the point -- what about your restoring it without process or civility?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As the nominator, i was about to re-start the discussion, your keep reasons not giving the real punch......Captain......Tälk tö me.. 16:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Category discussion notification Category:Stamps has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.
In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština  Deutsch  English  español  français  italiano  magyar  Nederlands  português  polski  sicilianu  slovenščina  Tiếng Việt  беларуская (тарашкевіца)  македонски  русский  українська  ತುಳು  ಕನ್ನಡ  ไทย  עברית  日本語  中文  +/−

--ŠJů (talk) 23:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Dcoetzee (talk) 03:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Affiche_OMS-AIEA.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Multichill (talk) 16:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Un bonjour

Bonjour Yann, Il y a peu, j'ai vu un film bollywoodien, La Famille indienne (Kabhi Khushi Kabhie Gham...) et j'y ai tout de suite reconnu Amitabh Bachchan pour l'avoir déjà vu en Valued Image, grâce à la nomination que tu avais faite (et remportée) l'année dernière ! A part ça, j'espère que tu vas bien. Toujours en Inde ? Bien cordialement, --Myrabella (talk) 09:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for dealing with the undeletion request I filed for a pair of images of Dubai. Dealing with all the FoP related deletion requests on my uploads has taken over six months, so I'm glad this is sorted. CT Cooper · talk 11:05, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

free speech flag

thank you for your work on Free-speech-flag-ps3.svg Decora (talk) 14:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:The_Origins_of_Totalitarianism.djvu has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

 — billinghurst sDrewth 10:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you received or verified a link for the photograph, that it is existing in PD..??? ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 10:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From where you got the publication date, as i cannot find it in any of the links.....Captain......Tälk tö me.. 03:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pas d'accord ! ... ou il te faut manifestement d'autres arguments plus "sérieux"

Bonjour ! Voir Commons:Deletion requests/File:Royal-de-luxe-Élephant-mai-2005-2.jpg - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 (talk) 08:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

licensing WHO image for Documentary

Hi Yann, I'm a producer helping out with visual acquisitions for a new documentary. We would like to use your image http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:World_Health_Organisation_building_from_west.jpg. Unfortunately, since we have licensed other 3rd party material, we are unable to do a GNU license. Are you open to providing permissions for us to use this image in our doc? Pls let me know if you'd like to get more details. I can be found at rivkahbeth at hotmail {dot} com. thanks for your attention and great photo!Rivkahbeth (talk) 22:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You restored Category:Murghab River. You restored it as a redirect.

Forgive me for nit-picking, but I am going to suggest the other name should really redirect to Category:Murghab River, and not vice versa.

I am going to suggest that Category:Murghab River should be the base category for several reasons:

  1. Another contributor emptied Category:Murghab River without any prior discussion. I suggest that emptying was inappropriate. It seems to have been a newbie mistake. I suggest this is a strong reason why Category:Murghab River should be the basename.
  2. Letting the newbie get away with this newbie mistake sends the message that emptying existing categories, without discussion is OK. But, it isn't OK. It is disruptive.
  3. As per the discussion, transliteration of names from Afghanistan is tricky. As per the discussion the only variant used on official Afghan government websites is Murghab River, not Morghab River. I suggest this too is a strong reason why Category:Murghab River should be the basename.

Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 02:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an opinion on which name should be the main one. Please change it if you think it is better. Yann (talk) 08:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]