User talk:Civa

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Civa!
Afrikaans | Alemannisch | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | বাংলা | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Euskara | Estremeñu | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Frysk | Galego | עברית | हिन्दी | Hrvatski | Magyar | Հայերեն | Interlingua | Bahasa Indonesia | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | Latina | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | मराठी | Bahasa Melayu | Plattdüütsch | नेपाली | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Scots | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Kiswahili | தமிழ் | ไทย | Türkçe | Українська | Vèneto | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | 中文(台灣)‎ | +/−

Not duplicates[edit]

Hi, File:Jacques-Louis David - La Mort de Marat.jpg and File:Jacques-Louis David 002.jpg are not exact duplicates of File:Death of Marat by David.jpg, we keep all different versions of files except exact duplicates and scaled down versions.  :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 09:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I notice you marked a lot of other files as duplicates too. That template is only for deleting exact duplicates. If they are different versions just add them to the "other_versions" list in their {{information}} box. --Tony Wills (talk) 09:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Serious Violation[edit]

At Commons:Deletion requests/File:Photo1.JPG you added Symbol keep vote.svg Keep to a comment made by NVO. Making changes to another user's comments is usually not a good idea, and adding a vote template is a serious violation of our trust. Commons Admins make about 1,000 administrative actions per day, so we work fast, and changing a neutral comment to a Symbol keep vote.svg Keep, particularly where the user is an active and well known user, is likely to confuse the closing Admin. If do it again you will be blocked from editing.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Women of France[edit]

Hi! Don't take it personally -> [1], please. I know that there in France are very beautiful and very clean women, too ;). See here -> File:En pointe.jpg - it's the same girl! But from time to time they being also dirty, too. As everywhere on the world. Regards from Poland :) Electron Smiley kabelsalat.gif <Talk?> 16:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Commons is a store for various files, not only beautyful but for ugly, as well. They should be useful not only for Wikipedias but for other wikimedia projects (wikisources, wikibooks, etc.), too (e.g. "artistic" photos or painting about "all" and "nothing" cen be useful to illustrate the poems). Also it is a store for files that can be useful in the future.
The files was categorized as Women of France because it was tagged as taken in France by it's author, see -> . The city is also produced and this girl is on very meny other photos of this author. Looks like she was a student of a ballet school. Sometimes it is very interesting for people from distant countries see how French women can look like, as well... Electron Smiley kabelsalat.gif <Talk?> 17:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

DR nominations[edit]

I would appreciate it if you would take a little more care with nominating files for deletion as out of scope. I have noticed several cases recently, perhaps as many as ten, such as File:JoshfreeseFriends.jpg where a simple search would have turned up an article on one of the WPs or other clear evidence of notability. Thanks,      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I did read your message. File:JoshfreeseFriends.jpg has perhaps an evidence of notability, but :

  • This is an orphaned image (according to Commons, the image is not used in any WP).
  • The image has a too general category (Category:people). There were almost 500 images in this category. I try to put more refined category (by country, by profession, or ordinary wikipedians). Or nominate for deletion when I think that it is appropriate (the consensus will decide).

Please can you put this image in such a category : Category:Musicians from the United States, perhaps. A better way should be to create Category:Josh Freese to gather all the images of this artist. And you put a commonscat in the English (and other WP) articles.
If answer, on my talk page please. Regards. --Civa (talk) 14:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

You miss my point a little. First, File:JoshfreeseFriends.jpg was only an example of a pattern. Second, although you are correct about the image being an orphan and not in the right cats, neither of those are reasons to delete. We have many images that are not in use within WMF prjoects -- "orphan" is really a bad name for them -- there was never any intention that we keep only images that are in use in WMF projects.
So, again, I would appreciate it if you would take a little more care with your nominations for out-of-scope. Thanks,      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Freedom of Panorama[edit]


France does not have Freedom of Panorama for buildings that pass the threshold of originality (it must have a high level of originality!). See COM:FOP#France.

It's not true for ALL buildings but only for buildings that pass the threshold of originality.


L'argument invoqué est COM:FOP#France

Vous éprouvez, semble-t-il, un certain plaisir à supprimer des photos de Commons.

L'argument invoqué est "Freedom of Panorama"

Toutefois, la protection des oeuvres architecturales ne s'applique que pour les bâtiments récents dépassant le "seuil d'originalité", et présentant un caractère artistique certain (il est précisé sur Commons : "There is no freedom of panorama in France, neither for sculptures, nor for buildings that pass the threshold of originality. Concerning buildings, case law (CA Riom, 26 mai 1967) recognizes two criteria for originality: "a definite artistic character" (« un caractère artistique certain ») and the fact that it does not belong to a series. For instance, the architect of the Louvre Pyramid is entitled to claim copyright over representations of the Pyramid." ). S'il s'agit ici d'un bâtiment récent, présente-t-il un caractère artistique tel qu'il rentre dans la même catégorie que la pyramide du Louvre?

Cela ne concerne pas systématiquement TOUS les bâtiments récents, mais seulement une petite partie d'entre eux.

Ne feriez-vous pas un peu d'excès de zèle, l'ami?

Djampa (talk) 08:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


It is a recent building, and I am sure that the architect wouldnt agree if you say to him that his building is not original. COM:FOP#France applies here. Alas, but it is the French law. --Civa (talk) 20:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


No COM:FOP#France. According to French law, it is not allowed to publish picture whose the main subject is an original building (or original creation) until 70 years after the death of its author. Unless prior authorization by the author or his heirs. Civa (talk) 11:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

M. Civa, pouvez-vous me donner les informations exactes motivant votre décision de suppression. Qui est l'auteur du bâtiment ? Est-il vivant ou mort ? Quand le bâtiment a-t-il été construit ? Vous devez savoir tout ça, n'est-ce pas ? ℍenry (Babel talk !) (Francophone ?) 11:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC) ( = Copie de
Et puis, vous pouvez me parler en français comme je le fais après avoir contrôlé que vous le parliez aussi.

C'est regrettable, mais la loi française fait que les immeubles ou créations artistiques dont le créateur est vivant ou mort depuis moins de 70 ans sont copyrightées et ne doivent pas être publiée sauf autorisation du créateur ou de ses héritiers. Ou exceptions de type De minimis.
J'écris en anglais (approximatif) car la décision de suppression est prise après un débat avec des interlocuteurs en majorité anglophones. L'admin qui a supprimé l'image a rappelé des infos en ce sens.
Je suis d'accord que c'est regrettable, mais c'est la loi en France. --Civa (talk) 14:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Tour_First 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!

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | español | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | македонски | português | русский | +/− 09:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)