User talk:Eusebius

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. Česky | Deutsch | English | Español | Euskara | Suomi | Français | 한국어 | Nederlands | Македонски | +/-

"Eusebius suddenly realized that his stupid country had no Freedom of Panorama."
(The Chronicles of Commons)

Archives 2008 2009 Promotion messages Vanitas vanitatis, etc.

[edit] File:090625_-_Historische_Bahn_Reykjavik.JPG

This is a picture of a picture at the harbour - i have taken it myself. --Mef.ellingen (talk) 22:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I know you have taken it yourself, but it is a derivative work from a work that you did not created, so you don't hold full copyright over this picture. --Eusebius (talk) 22:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I have read it. In German there is a notice at the casebook, which i not found in the english version. In English it means: Paintings with frames are not allowed, but without frames they are allowed. At the German version there are "Gemälde/Fotos" free - this means paintings and pictures without frames? And there ist a sentence: Schneide mit einem Grafikprogramm den Rahmen weg, und es ist OK. - It means: cut the frame and it ist ok. What should i do? --Mef.ellingen (talk) 22:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

This particular regulation applies only to 2D documents (paintings, here) that are "PD by age" (that is, the creator has been dead for more than 70 years, in general). I guess the editor of the German version of the casebook took it as granted. In the case of your picture, it is not obvious that the locomotive photographs are old enough to be PD (we have to know who took them and when), and the text is copyrightable. f the photographs appear to be in the public domain, what can be done is crop the picture to show only them, and not the text, but we have to be sure, and it wouldn't be easy to get the information I guess. --Eusebius (talk) 22:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The picture left was taken in 1913, i can see it at the picture - but it is not easy to find out the photograph. And the picture right is not signd. The train was abandoned at 1928 - but there is the same problem - where was the photograph? Should i cut only this photos? --Mef.ellingen (talk) 11:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

It would certainly be safer to crop the pictures and upload them as separate files (with all the relevant info you have about them, of course). If Iceland was in the UE, I would use {{Anonymous-EU}}, but here I'm not sure. We only have very few Icelandic licence templates. {{PD-old}} is probably the best thing to use (with unknown in the author field), but the status of the images could still be attacked in a deletion request some day. --Eusebius (talk) 13:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I have done it, i hope it would be better so. --Mef.ellingen (talk) 15:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you delete the old picture? --Mef.ellingen (talk) 15:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done. --Eusebius (talk) 15:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Zèle d'Eusebot

Bonjour Eusebius, EuseBot a envoyé plein d'images de valeur déjà nominées et classées sur la page de catégorisation VI : ça se voit ici. C'est à cause d'un réglage en cours ? Bien cordialement, --Myrabella (talk) 22:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Merdouille, ya pas de réglage en cours... Est-ce que quelqu'un a modifié les noms des galeries, ou quelque chose dans le genre ? J'essaierai de jeter un coup d'oeil demain, mais je suis vraiment occupé en semaine. Les bots font un peu ce qu'ils veulent en ce moment, avec VICbot qui aime pas les libellules... --Eusebius (talk) 22:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Les choses se compliquent : si on reverte toute la dernière action d'Eusebot, on enlève aussi les "vraies" nouvelles VI nominées à ranger dans les galeries de VI... %-( J'ai rétabli les dernières, en me basant sur les dernières images ajoutées à la liste des VI par date, je vais les classer, nous verrons comment elles seront traitées au prochain passage d'EuseBot... --Myrabella (talk) 10:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Ca s'est moins grave, parce que quand le bot est en bonne santé, il remet dans la liste tous les VIs promus mais qui n'apparaissent dans aucune gallerie. Il est vachement intelligent en fait, quand il nous fait pas une dépression nerveuse :-) --Eusebius (talk) 10:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Bon, apparemment il y a quelque chose qui fonctionne différemment dans la recherche des références d'une image, mais pour l'instant je n'arrive même pas à savoir si ça vient de MediaWiki ou du framework du bot... Et je ne comprends pas ce qui a changé. J'ai débranché cette fonctionnalité pour l'instant. --Eusebius (talk) 17:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Vu, merci. Est-ce qu'il pourrait y avoir un lien avec le fait que VICBot a été réinstallé sur un nouveau serveur récemment ? --Myrabella (talk) 08:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Non, EuseBot n'a pas changé de serveur et ne communique pas directement avec VICbot. --Eusebius (talk) 10:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Bon, EuseBot marche de nouveau. Je n'ai pas trouvé pourquoi il ne marchait plus, j'ai juste changé de méthode... --Eusebius (talk) 13:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Merci d'avoir consacré un peu de temps à ce problème et d'avoir trouvé moyen de le résoudre (même si le mystère demeure ;-) ! --Myrabella (talk) 20:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Mistake

Hi, Eusebius, I'm afraid I just made a mistake when adding a new category (Hans Bernhard) to some pictures. Would you please be so kind and have a look at the gallery of "Schnobby"? - The photo "Mongolian Lama" had a remark with a star, that it probably could be priced as excellent. So I put it on the list. I hope I did it the right way, because it's the first time. Regards, --Schnorch (talk) 10:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi. What kind of mistake do you think you have made? Could you be more specific? I wonder whether this category should be a standard category, or instead a "user category". Think about it. About the Lama picture: I'm not very familiar with the Featured Pictures project, but if there is a problem they will tell you about it. Everything looks ok for me, though. --Eusebius (talk) 10:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Eusebius. I'm sorry that I didn't write down what was written there in big red letters, but it seems to be ok now. - Sorry too, I didn't know that about user categories. I thought, if I have a category, my husband could have one for himself. Should I change both categories to user categories by adding user category to all pictures? How should this look like? Template:User category:Hans Bernhard for instance? Please give me an example. --Schnobby (talk) 11:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not very good today. I just used the other user name Schnobby and you told me that I must not do this. I hope you got my message nevertheless about this user category. Excuse me, please! Schnorch (talk) 11:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

About user categories: they have two main features. They use {{user category}}, which makes them invisible in the image page, and they are not linked to the main category tree. For instance, Files by Eusebius has no real parents, it is only listed in hidden categories and user categories. In our case, the decision of using a normal category or a user category depends on how notable the creator/artist is. I'm in no way a notable person (according to Wikipedia-like criteria, for instance), and more specifically I'm not notable because I create photographs or diagrams, so it shouldn't be a standard category, it is simply a user category, mostly relevant for me and for other users on Commons. On the other hand, Paintings by Gustave Doré is a standard category about the work of a very notable artist (obvious case). It is not even a Commons user of course, but I couldn't find a clear cut example of a Commons user who would also be a well-known artist. I guess you understand the issue better. The evaluation of whether the creator of some content is significant enough to warrant a standard category is pretty subjective. I'm in no way entitled to give you an answer, I leave the decision to you. There are many categories, in the standard category tree, for photographs by people which are in my opinion borderline (see Photographs by author for examples). --Eusebius (talk) 13:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Eusebius. Thank you for your reply which I found clear enough to think it over and make a decision. I'm not convinced that a category:Photographs by Hans Bernhard will be the right way for our case, because his photos belong to much more expressive categories, where they can be found by Commons users easily by theme, for example "Nut" oder "Stained glass paintings". So I've decided to delete the new category. Besides, we have this nice gallery in "Schnobby", that already contains all his photos and paintings. Thank you for your help; it's always better to ask someone like you who has more overview. Regards, --Schnobby (talk) 09:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I just deleted all categories:Hans Bernhard in the pictures, but not the category itself, I didn't know how. Perhaps this is your turn as admin. If so, please do it. Kind regards, --Schnobby (talk) 15:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

That's right, you have to be an admin to delete anything, I'll take care of this one. Empty categories get deleted quite regularly, but you can speed the process up by putting {{speedy|empty category}} in the category code. --Eusebius (talk) 15:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

Hi!

Please, change back the license of my pictures. They all are my works, I'm an artist! I made them. If you are not so sure about it, check this home page: http://www.redbubble.com/people/norbertkiss. My real name is Norbert Kiss, and my artistic name is Párvusz. --Eino81 (talk) 10:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi. This is not a mistake. I am totally ready to believe that you are the artist. I didn't say that these pictures were copyright violations, what I did say is that we need a formal permission from the artist (you) to host them. Would you please send us an e-mail in this form to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, with maybe a reference to "any work by Párvusz (or Norbert Kiss) uploaded by User:Eino81"? Also please tell me when it is done so that I can update the image pages. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 10:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, I sent the mail them. --Eino81 (talk) 10:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

By the way, are you an ORTS member? I sent today an other permission letter about this picture: File:Sabrina_Javor.JPG Could you see that? --Eino81 (talk) 10:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm OTRS. I'll have a look. --Eusebius (talk) 11:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, merci beaucoup, mon ami :) About the File:Sabrina_Javor.JPG, I wrote to Sabrina to get to know, who was the photographer if she was not. I hope, I get an answer withing one week. --Eino81 (talk) 09:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Fosse n° 12 des mines de Lens

Bonjour, ajoutant un grand nombre d'images aujourd'hui sur les mines de Lens, les descriptions sont ajoutées au copié-collé. Par conséquent, je n' ai pas encore pris le nom de relever le nom des éditeurs de la source. je commencerais ce travail dans une heure environ et je le finirais demain. JÄNNICK Jérémy (talk) 14:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Bonjour. Il y a peu de chance que vous trouviez le nom du photographe sur ce genre de cartes postales, mais une date approximative est essentielle. Si la photo a été publiée avant 1938 sans mention de l'auteur dans un des pays de l'Union, on peut utiliser {{Anonymous-EU}}. --Eusebius (talk) 14:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Merci, je ne connaissais pas cette licence, j'étais plutôt habitué à utilisé PD-old. Quant aux dates, même si parfois elles ne sont pas notées, il est possible de les retrouver dans mon cas via l'architecture des bâtiments miniers, notamment le fait que ce soit avant ou après la Première Guerre Mondiale. JÄNNICK Jérémy (talk) 14:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Drummond castle

I've removed some ca and tweaked it a bit. It is a nice image but I couldn't make it QI with the ca - hope this is ok :)? Regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure, you're obviously better than me at postprocessing. --Eusebius (talk) 21:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome - just finished a foundation level photography course - maybe it was worth the money :) I'll happily help any of the nicer people on Commons ;). Let me know if you need anything, regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Well... I need a course :-) --Eusebius (talk) 13:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Your comment on Dolbunov's page

Hi Eusebius!

did you by chance forget to post the link to the discussion on Dolbunov's page? --Amada44 (talk) 16:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sorry about that. I've added the link. --Eusebius (talk) 21:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Untm-morocco-logo.svg

J'ai compris des circonstances concernant la suppression de l'image File:Untm-morocco-logo.svg Amicalement. Merci pour les services. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amjahed (talk • contribs) 13:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC) (UTC)

OK, n'hésitez pas à demander si vous avez des questions ou des doutes. --Eusebius (talk) 13:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Monnaie de Malte

OK tu as reverté mon info sur l'autorisation d'utilisation des monnaies maltaises. Pourtant, j'indique que le Copyright Act, seule loi maltaise traitant du copyright ne fait pas état de la reproduction des monnaies et je donne comme exemple la site officiel de la Bank of Malta qui autorise explicitement la reproduction des monnaies qui sont sur son site à la condition que celle-ci «ne soit pas déformées ou détournées» expressions typiquement maltaises utilisées dans les lois comme au sujet des armes et du drapeau maltais. Comment peut-on autrement justifier de quelque chose qui n'est pas expressément interdit sauf à tenir le raisonnement courant en terme de droit: tout ce qui n'est pas interdit est autorisé. Merci de ta réponse avant que je rétablisse l'info dans l'article. Cordialement -- • Hamelin ^{[ de Guettelet ]} • 13:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Bonjour. Le fait que les pièces de monnaie et les billets ne soient pas mentionnés dans le Copyright Act signifie qu'ils ne sont couverts par aucune exception au droit d'auteur (enfin, au copyright), et donc qu'ils sont protégés, comme toute oeuvre de l'esprit dans les limites de créativité éventuellement fixées. C'est ce qui se passe en France : les pièces et billets ne sont couverts par aucune exception, ils sont protégés normalement par le droit d'auteur.

À propos de la déclaration sur le site de la Banque de Malte : je n'ai pas vérifié la déclaration originale mais comme tu l'as citée, elle serait jugée "insuffisante" pour Commons (sauf précision éventuelle de leur part) car elle n'autorise pas excplicitement les travaux dérivés et les utilisations commerciales. D'autre part, elle ne couvre que les images qui sont sur le site, et ne disent rien sur le statut des pièces et billets en eux-mêmes. Comme c'est la Banque de Malte qui détient le copyright, ils ont le droit de donner des autorisations pour certaines photos (dont ils détiennent aussi les droits) tout en interdisant les reproductions faites par des tiers.

L'idéal, ce serait d'obtenir un courrier ou un e-mail officiel de la Banque de Malte qui clarifie la situation, en nous disant 1) si oui ou non les pièces et billets (enfin, les faces nationales) sont protégés par copyright, et si oui, 2) si les images de leur site peuvent être utilisées avec une licence "compatible Commons" (avec un texte de ce type-là, ou simplement une note comme quoi c'est dans le domaine public, aux restrictions près sur la contrefaçon bien sûr). Sans une telle autorisation, juste avec les infos que tu as données, on ne peut pas considérer que ces images (ou n'importe quelles autres images de monnaie maltaise) sont utilisables. Cordialement, --Eusebius (talk) 14:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Bonjour.

D'abord il me semble avoir vu quelque part, qu'un mail de la Bank of Malta de cette sorte existe, mais je ne sait pas le retrouver. Maintenant, si l'autorisation donnée sur son site couvre la reproduction des photos du site, elle couvre évidemment les monnaies qui y sont reproduites, reste le problème spécifique de la licence et de l'éventuelle utilisation commerciale de ces photos, je te le concède, mais cette restriction n'existe pas dans l'autorisation de reproduction du contenu du site de la Bank. Ce qui n'est pas sous copyrigth est dans le domaine public. Non ? Il faudrait donc que les monnaies soient sous copyright pour empêcher de quelques façons que ce soit, leur reproduction photographique ou dessinée puisque les deux existent sur le site.

Je pense qu'il faut inverser ton raisonnement, le Copyright Act, un très long document, qui, mais il faut que je le relise, ne pose pas de principe générale du style tout est sous copyright sauf ou tout est public sauf. Il reprend systématiquement tous ce qui est couvert par copyright (Malte a une législation anglo-saxonne), de quelles façon c'est couvert et explique les règles et droits de l'utilisation de chaque chose couverte, littérature, sculpture, chanson, parole, musique, film, architecture, etc. etc. donc le reste est du domaine public comme les monnaies ou les billets de banque. Si la législation maltaise avait voulu interdire ou limité la reproduction de ceux-ci (hormis fausse monnaie évidemment prévue dans d'autres lois) elle aurait spécifiquement prévu un article à ce sujet. A ma connaissance il n'y a que deux possibilités sous copyright (protection) ou domaine public (liberté). De plus je possède quelques documents officiels maltais ou brochures commerciales ou publicitaires pour préparer la population maltaise à l'adoption de l'euro sur lesquelles aucune des photos des pièces n'est copyrigtées comme le sont généralement toutes les autres photos. Pour l'anecdote c'est le peuple maltais qui est considéré comme auteur des monnaies car les faces maltaises sont le résultat de deux consultations nationales.

Cordialement -- • Hamelin ^{[ de Guettelet ]} • 15:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

"si l'autorisation donnée sur son site couvre la reproduction des photos du site, elle couvre évidemment les monnaies qui y sont reproduites" : Non, non et non... Ca, c'est juste faux. Si les monnaies sont protégées par copyright, c'est la Banque de Malte qui le détient, et ils peuvent donc donner une autorisation limitée à certaines photos et pas à d'autres, sans que l'objet initial sorte du copyright.

Pour le reste, je vais essayer de chercher s'il existe un mail sur la plate-forme OTRS et je vais regarder le Copyright Act de plus près. --Eusebius (talk) 15:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Sur l'e-mail : il n'a pas été enregistré via OTRS mais par un contributeur individuel (familier des interprétations abusives des déclarations des banques nationales, d'ailleurs...). Extrait : "The user is granted permission to make use of the Central Bank of Malta's web pages, save files, distribute and reproduce pages. However, the source is to be stated and the material not altered or distorted". C'est plus que clairement inacceptable pour Commons, puisque les travaux dérivés sont explicitement interdits. --Eusebius (talk) 15:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Bon, le copyright act confirme ce que je disais :

Ce qui couvre les pièces de monnaies et les billets, qui sont protégés par copyright. Au besoin, l'Act rappelle spécifiquement que les travaux publiés ou ordonnés par les instances du gouvernement sont protégés :

Donc les pièces et billets postérieurs à 1938 sont protégés par copyright. Dès que j'aurai le temps, je re-rédigerai le paragraphe pour Commons:Currency. --Eusebius (talk) 16:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, je viens aussi de relire le Copyright Act et j'ai relevé les mêmes choses que toi. Reste la possibilité d'utiliser les documents présent sur le site de la Bank of Malta, "User is granted permission to make use of the Central Bank of Malta's web pages, save files, distribute and reproduce pages. The However, the source is to be stated and the material not altered or distorted" comment interpréter cela au regard du travail dérivé ? Tu ne peux pas interpréter altered or distorted comme une interdiction d'un travail dérivé et de plus charger un document n'est pas du travail dérivé non plus. Merci -- • Hamelin ^{[ de Guettelet ]} • 21:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

"the material not altered or distorted" interdit toute modification des photos. C'est plutôt clair, ce n'est pas du tout compatible avec une licence libre. --Eusebius (talk) 21:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, je comprend ton interprétation, en chargeant la photo même sans modification, j'autorise sa modification ultérieure, ce qui n'est pas autorisé par la Bank of Malta. J'ai plus rien à dire. C'est vraiment un truc tout simple ces histoires de licence . Merci de toutes tes explications, je suis un peu moins bête aujourd'hui qu'hier. Cordialement -- • Hamelin ^{[ de Guettelet ]} • 03:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Bah écoute, merci d'avoir pointé les documents qui vont bien... C'est clairement pas simple ces histoires. --Eusebius (talk) 06:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 3D games

Hi, you were active in GPL screenshots discussion, there is new DR about licensing / creativity of 3D game screenshot, so I thought you may want to voice your opinion --Justass (talk) 02:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Argh. OK, I'll have a look at it if you give me a link. --Eusebius (talk) 06:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sorry Commons:Deletion requests/File:Anno1404 screenshot2.jpg --Justass (talk) 12:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I was hoping you would forget! :-) --Eusebius (talk) 12:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Framingham.png

It wasn't very wise to stop the discussion that quickly. The history (heir etc.) of this picture should be correctly mentioned in the permission description. Also a us-gov-military license may be aplly. The picture may be right, but the discription is wrong.--Avron (talk) 09:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I have speedily kept because there was no new element in the new deletion request, they had been discussed already. The personal history doesn't have to be displayed on the image page I think. About the Us-gov-military license, it might be right, but we don't really know. It is true that it would be safer if the uploader would agree to release under PD, so that the picture would be PD anyway. --Eusebius (talk) 12:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know about the first discussion. If the permisstion situation isn't laid out, so questions will arise again and again. At least the description should reflect the first discussion. Like I said, at the moement the license is wrong.--Avron (talk) 17:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I have changed the licence to {{PD-USGov-Military-Air Force}}, I think you're right, it's better. --Eusebius (talk) 18:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Statut de la thèse de doctorat

Salut. Dans mon cas, ça a été assez simple : mon contrat d'allocataire de recherche ne contenait aucune clause relative au droit d'auteur etc., donc j'étais le seul détenteur des droits. La réponse, en général, est que si le contrat ne prévoit rien, l'auteur est seul maître. Mais bien entendu, je ne suis pas juriste :) guillom 01:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, mais il pourrait y avoir des restrictions (légales) supérieures au contrat. J'ai un vague souvenir d'un texte de loi qui parle des productions d'étudiants servant à valider l'attribution d'un diplôme national, mais peut-être que je me goure et que ça concernait juste les sujets d'examen (qui seraient dans le domaine public). La juriste avec qui j'ai parlé du statut du manuscrit me disait aussi que les textes de PI n'étaient pas clairs sur les productions des agents de l'état dans le cadre de leurs fonctions (ce qui est le cas de ta thèse si tu étais allocataire). Mais elle n'avait pas le souvenir que la PI sur une thèse ait jamais été contestée à son auteur. Je crois qu'encore une fois, le droit de la PI en France s'appuie sur la non-jurisprudence du cachage sous le tapis :-) --Eusebius (talk) 08:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] St Malo

Je soutiendrais volontier ta première photo du fort national mais elle est sursaturée surtout les rouges; peux-tu baisser un peu la saturation? amicalement -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Aaah mais ce n'est pas la mienne, sinon elle aurait été parfaite :-) Plus sérieusement, je ne pense pas avoir ni l'oeil ni la maîtrise des outils pour faire les réglages fins que tu demandes. Peut-être que tu es mieux placé pour ça, si justement tu cernes le problème ? Question subsidiaire, est-ce que c'est bien important pour une VI, alors que le niveau de qualité demandé est celui d'un téléphone portable ? --Eusebius (talk) 17:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Pending tickets

Sorry I didn't see your message earlier. I had previously spoken to the photographer before who had said that he would permit me to upload the photos, I then forwarded him the copy of the permissions agreement telling him to forward it into WikiCommons and then uploaded the pictures, assuming he would also send the agreement. I'll message him to make sure he's still okay with it and that he forwarded it. FreddiusMercurium (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The pictures can be restored if the permission ever comes. --Eusebius (talk) 06:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The e-mail should be received by now, I was CCed into it a few hours ago. FreddiusMercurium (talk) 02:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't find the ticket, but maybe it is because I don't have access to it. If you agree to tell me, by e-mail, the originating e-mail address, or the subject of the e-mail, or an excerpt of the text (or to forward the whole e-mail to me), I'll be able to make a more precise search. --Eusebius (talk) 08:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Not to sound like an idiot but what button do I click to e-mail you? FreddiusMercurium (talk) 22:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

click here (the link should be on the left hand menu when you visit my user page). --Eusebius (talk) 22:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Deletion (cosmetics)

Hi, I have edited the the DR discussion,I don't quite understand what you mean. How to use DelReqHandler.--Fanghong (talk) 07:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, when I close a DR, on the right of the file name, I have two links "keep" and "delete" (plus the four links "k", "keep", "d" and "delete"). If I use the "keep" link next to the filename, it automatically removes the DR template from the image page and adds a link to the DR page in the image talk page. If I use the "delete" link, it automatically deletes the image page with a deletion summary embedding a link to the DR page. Do you see those links? --Eusebius (talk) 08:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template

Hello Eusebius/Guillaume, thank you for your emails and the http with the template. Is there anything which I have to do different now when uploading my pictures? Till yesterday I added this OTRS pending to my drawings and this Dual licensed by its author under GFDL and so on to the photos of my husband. - As I want to upload a better photo of the "Mongolian Lama" with smoother colors, would you mind just deleting the old one? And by the way, we hope you are not getting too stressed in the run-up to Christmas and that you will find the time to relax. Season's greeting, have a good time and nice holidays! --Schnobby (talk) 11:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi. What you should do now is: not use the OTRS pending template, not describe the licence, not use any licence template, but simply put {{Ingeborg Bernhard permission}} in the "permission" field. It displays everything that is needed.

About the picture that you want to update: if it is really only a better version of the same work, what you can do is upload it over the existing one by using the link "Upload a new version of this file" in the "File History" section in the image page. It is something that you shouldn't do for different pictures, though. Its intended use is only to upload better versions of the same file. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 11:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, what would I do without your help! One little problem although: The new Mongolian Lama is cut a little different, but it is the same photo. Does that matter? Cheers, --Schnobby (talk) 12:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be ok. --Eusebius (talk) 13:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I just uploaded the File "Granada, 1970.1." But it wanted me to fill up the licence template too and you told me not to do that. Why must it be so difficult, Guillaume, can you tell me? A little tired, Schnobby (talk) 16:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, you're right, you have to choose a license at upload time. You can just remove it afterwards and do it in two steps, just like the painting template. Sorry about that! --Eusebius (talk) 17:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Unfinished DR

I think the pics with "speceman" may not vio copyright.--Fanghong (talk) 09:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Which proves that you have not understood the discussion. --Eusebius (talk) 09:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Cestgin comics

Hi! Now what is the problem with that comics permission? I thought, that if you give a ORTS-permission to each of my pictures, I could use that also here. what could I do? --Eino81 (talk) 09:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

You gave me this last time: {{OTRS|2009120810028462}} --Eino81 (talk) 09:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know, but it is only related to the limited list of images that you have given in your permission e-mails. I think I remember suggesting you an "umbrella permission" referring to "all work credited to X and uploaded by User:Y", but this is not what you did, so this ticket is only valid for a few images. You still can reply to the ticket and extend your permission, or send a new one. --Eusebius (talk) 12:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

So if I send you another permission letter, you could give to that a ticket. Or could you change all of my pictures to an umbrella permission? Now I know, what you meant with that. --Eino81 (talk) 23:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Only you can give permission. We only record it. --Eusebius (talk) 06:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I sent a permission letter to you :) --Eino81 (talk) 16:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I hope you mean to the OTRS platform. Then you can apply {{OTRS pending}} on any image concerned by this permission e-mail, so that they don't get deleted. --Eusebius (talk) 17:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Hungarian coins and banknotes pictures

Hi Eusebius, I've sent to your email a document from the Hungarian National Bank about copyright on coins and banknotes which perhaps is interesting for you and other OTRS volunteers. Best regards!--Manu (talk) 17:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Received. I'll reply by e-mail. --Eusebius (talk) 22:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] QI

Merci pour la Quality Picture gratuite, j'espère que tu te a comptes pour toi aussi. Bonne continuation ! Rama (talk) 23:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

De rien ! --Eusebius (talk) 06:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Question : Copyright violations

I am uploading a book to wikibooks. The Name of the book is A Guidebook for Managing Telecentre Networks: Engineering a New Phase of the Telecentre Movement . The author of the book requested me to do this task and about the images they told me to mention the telecentre.org . They send me the source of the book . i made those images from that book.

though i have made those images but can you please tell me how can i give the credit of images to the telecentre.org? where should i mention the name of telecentre.org , in the Author or the Source field?

and what topics should i mention in the OTRS email. -- Nasir Khan Saikat ^{(Talk|Contributions)} 12:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Hum. I am not sure I fully understand the situation. The main issue for me when I tagged your pictures was that you were referring to an external source, and therefore that we needed a permission from them. Any image coming from telecentre.org or showing their logo or URL, should get an OTRS permission from the owners of the website. Apart from that, I understand that we are talking about illustrations extracted from a book. If so, the author of an illustration should send us an OTRS permission in the same way. In the "author" field should be mentionned the name of the creator, as credited in the book (or the author of the book if there is no specific credit for the illustration). In the "source" field, I would give a full reference of the book from which the illustation comes, eventually with a link to telecentre.org if it is relevant. This kind of reference calls for an OTRS ticket, thus the permission e-mails that need to be sent. I hope it is clearer?

About permission e-mails: the standard text can be found here and they should be sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. --Eusebius (talk) 13:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] By year categories

As the category states: "This is a by year category. This category should only contain subcategories." I've been clearing out some "by" categories. Man vyi (talk) 18:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, but you solved nothing. Solving the problem would be creating the subcats instead of blindly deleting the information. --Eusebius (talk) 19:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Hepatica nobilis

Tu as été un peu dur pour Hepatica nobilis.jpg. (image de valeur). Je ne suis pas un photographe mais un naturaliste, c’est vrai que la forme mauve n’est pas la plus courante mais c’est peut être là l’intérêt de cette photo (qui m’a l’air de belle qualité). Dans un article les formes rares ont leur place. J’aurai volontiers soutenue cette photo mais je concours pour celle d’à-côté ce ne serait pas très « délicat ». Ceci dit « chapeau » pour ton travail qui m’impressionne… -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Ben c'est dur, mais c'est l'idée du projet VI, il faut rechercher l'image qui soit la plus représentative, ce qui élimine les exceptions. Ca ne veut pas dire que les formes rares n'ont pas leur place dans un article, c'est juste que l'image en tête de l'article ne devrait pas être une forme rare.

Hein ? Mon travail ? Quel travail ? Quand je suis sur Commons, c'est précisément que je ne travaille pas... :-) --Eusebius (talk) 11:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

A la réflexion c'est juste... Bon travail... sur Commons -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright violations

Hi, You left some message about some of my uploaded photos and request the author's permission. FYI I've forward author's email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org address, the emails contain the permissions. Hope you can find the emails. Thank you.--Bellayet (talk) 13:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

OK. I will probably not process the permission e-mail myself, though. --Eusebius (talk) 13:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Chalcanthite (Quality Image)

Tu fais remarquer que cette photo est légèrement floue...

Je l'ai bien regardé...

Tu as raison. Je pense avoir compris depuis pourquoi j'avais ces vibrations je vais donc la refaire. Comment sort-on ou peut on dire que l'on retire une photo du concours? Merci --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Tu peux ajouter {{withdraw}} dans la discussion et passer le statut du candidat à "/Withdraw". Par curiosité, c'est quoi le souci ? Ca a bougé ? --Eusebius (talk) 17:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Au déclenchement le poids de l’objectif est trop lourd, et çà bouge. J’utilise maintenant un trépied pour l’appareil et un pour l’objectif. J’ai commander aussi un flash annulaire. Bref j’apprend la photographie grâce à… Commons. -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 20:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Pareil pour moi (pour la dernière phrase, pas pour le flash annulaire, qui ne me sert pas à grand-chose pour photographier les cathédrales :-) L'inconvénient, c'est aussi que Commons ça fait acheter du matos ! --Eusebius (talk) 20:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Monuments historiques

Salut,

Je vois que tu as trouvé le modèle {{Mérimée}}, si ça t'amuse il existe le Projet Monuments Historiques français. Je te dis ça parce que tu as fait pas mal de photos de monuments historiques.

Cordialement, Coyau (talk) 21:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Ben disons que ça fait un moment que je vois les gens du projet passer derrière moi sur des catégories que j'ai modifiées ou créées (ou que je surveille), alors quand j'ai créé une catégorie pour une image à toi je me suis dit que j'allais faire un effort... Je m'appliquerai à mettre le template sur les cats que je suis amené à toucher, mais je ne compte pas participer au projet plus activement. Je fais suffisamment de trucs par ailleurs pour pouvoir te dire non sans avoir mauvaise conscience :-) Merci pour ton/votre boulot (ici et ailleurs) en tout cas. --Eusebius (talk) 21:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Il n'y a pas d'obligation (pour ça comme pour le reste, d'ailleurs), c'est déjà pas si mal que ça, d'y penser quelque fois. Et bravo aussi pour ton boulot d'une manière générale. --Coyau (talk) 21:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Patenschaftsteller.jpg

It´s the same problem, i think. It is a photo taken myself at the museum here in my hometown. The photo is 2D. --Mef.ellingen (talk) 22:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)