User talk:Jean-Pol GRANDMONT

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Contents 1 Category:Folklore of Wallonia 2 Crupet 3 Belgium cities/villages photos 4 About some images you uploaded 5 Answer 6 Vos imådjes 7 Cathédrale de Tournai 8 Derivative work 9 Quality Image 10 Image:Orcival JPG01.jpg and Image:Trois-Ponts JPG01.jpg 11 Category:Medieval churches in Belgium | Category:Churches in Belgium 12 Commons:Geocoding 13 Please do not blank pages... 14 Walloon Region 15 Email 16 Quality Image Promotion 17 Image:Mammillaria geminispina JPG.jpg 18 showcasing your photos 19 Image:Stropharia aeruginosa JPG1a.jpg 20 Category 21 Abbaye de Floreffe 22 Li Pontia 23 geo localisation 24 Géo 25 Double pas cohérent 26 Félicitation 27 Haine-Saint-Paul 28 juste pour vous le dire 29 Gallery 30 Quality Image Promotion 31 License change to File:Relieur JPG01.jpg 32 (réponse) Insertion d'image dans Commons:Featured picture candidates 33 Important proposal 34 Photographe 35 FP promotion 36 FP promotion 37 Morlanwelz-Mariemont 38 Transcluded user templates with embedded license templates 39 Once again thanks!! 40 Photographers Blackbelt 41 Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bürstegg Biberkopf.jpg 42 Please link images 43 Watermill 44 Charmilles 45 File:Ganoderma applanatum JPG1.jpg

[edit] Category:Folklore of Wallonia

Dj' a fwait ene categoreye Category:Folklore of Wallonia. Vos î pôrîz kécfeye mete vos fotos sol "car d' ôr".

Av' dedja stî fotografyî li "tchaboté frinne" di Belaire ?

Ki ça vos våye bén.

Lucyin 23:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Dji va cwand minme sayî, pitchote a midjote.

Po les eglijhes, metans, gn a bråmint d' trop dins Category:Churches in Belgium. On pôreut fé Category:Churches in Wallonia, adonpwis Category:Churches in Liège Province...

Mins dji di ça et dji n' di rén.

Li vî tchaboté frinne di Belaire sereut al croejhlåde del voye ki dischind sol fond d' Coyî et l' ôte ki dischind so Djoupeye (sorlon Georges Lebois, on scrijheu a "Nosse Lingaedje.

Lucyin 21:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crupet

Merci pour avoir mis cette image sur Wikimédia Commons! J'aimerais voter pour sa inclusion comme photo de qualité ; pourtant, la résolution pourrait être meilleure. Puisqu'on construit un fonds d'images pour l'avenir, il faut que la résolution de nos images soit très haute. Peut-être pourriez-vous nous donner une version de votre photo avec une résolution plus haute. --Zantastik 21:03, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bonjour,

Votre proposition de vote pour l’image [1] me fait réellement plaisir et m’encourage vraiment à publier mes photographies dans Commons. Malheureusement je ne possède plus le format original 2272x1704 de cette image. En effet habitué à insérer mes images dans des articles WIKIPEDIA (fr, en, nl et wa) et poussé à réduire le format de mes images à 120 Ko maximum par l’administrateur du site wa, j’ai réduit le format de cette image et je l’ai malheureusement sauvegardée sous ce format sans garder une copie de la photographie originale. Votre message aura eu le grand mérite d’attirer mon attention sur le problème de qualité maximum des photographies à envoyer et je ne manquerai pas de suivre vos conseils. Pourriez-vous me dire quel est le format idéal ?

Merci d’avance et à bientôt sur le net j’espère !

Jean-Pol

JPGrandmont 07:18, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Belgium cities/villages photos

Thank you for providing pictures on Commons.

Please put them into Category:Cities and villages in Belgium only or better into category about specific city/village. Just for avoiding Category:Belgium's overcrowding.

EugeneZelenko 13:40, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] About some images you uploaded

I think that images of a mushroom of one specie should be in a page (like Boletus edulis or Clitocybe phyllophila, each inserted in their category: family <- fungi_by_family <- fungi) and they shouldn't be in a category like Ascocoryne sarcoides or Boletus edulis inserted in fungi.

--Qualc1 19:07, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Answer

I have answered you in my discussion page

--Qualc1 12:39, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vos imådjes

Dj'a djustumint veyou co sacwantès imådjes ki vs avoz saetchî. Ele sont foirt beles. Proficiåte! Dji n'sapéve nén ki vos avoz stî a Carcasone, savoz. - Waelsch 19:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Todi la? Dj'a djustumint veyou vos novelès imådjes. Waelsch 16:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cathédrale de Tournai

Bonjour, dans une question posée à l'Oracle, un visiteur souhaiterait une "photo en couleur du vitrail de la cathédrale de TOURNAI représentant le "poids public"". Auriez-vous cela dans vos cartons ? Merci pour lui :) --Neuceu 16:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Bons-Secours JPG00a.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. gildemax 16:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

==Image:Anntoing JPG04.jpg== You uploaded this image which you claim to be your own work. On the upload page you agreed to place it under a Free license but did not specify which one. Please do so by replacing the {{OwnWork}} tag with a suitable copyright tag. --gildemax 11:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Derivative work

As far as I know, photos of statues in public space are allowed based on "panorama freedom", so I removed speedy deletion request on them. If you don't agree with that, plese make regular delation request. A.J. 14:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Hmm... panorama freedom does not apply to some countries... :/ sorry for the mess, I reverted myself A.J. 14:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quality Image

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Image Image:Musa JPG01.jpg, which was nominated by you for Quality Image status, was reviewed and has now been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎.

—JeremyA 23:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Orcival JPG01.jpg and Image:Trois-Ponts JPG01.jpg

Català | Česky | Dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Français | Galego | עברית | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Lietuvių | Nederlands | ‪Norsk (bokmål)‬ | Polski | Português | Русский | Slovenčina | ‪中文(简体)‬ | ‪中文(繁體)‬ | +/− Hello, and thank your for sharing your files with Commons. There seems to be a problem regarding the description and or licensing of this particular file. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? Thank you. --gildemax 15:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Medieval churches in Belgium | Category:Churches in Belgium

Hi Jean-Pol, Category:Medieval churches in Belgium is a subcat of Category:Churches in Belgium. I would therefore recommend that one cat (esp.: Category:Medieval churches in Belgium ) is enough. Greetings --Wst ^question 14:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

(insert)

I do not agree with you because :

• 1. you do not have proceed on the same way for others photographies of the category ?
• 2. you have lay in the main category some photographies who have nothing to do there ?
• 3. you do not have lay at least one representative photography in the main category ?

Jean-Pol GRANDMONT 18:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Bonjour Jean-Pol,

I have moved all photographs from Chapels of Belgium to Chapels in Belgium (both categories were created by you anyway), now everything is together in one category. I chose the in version, because most subcategories of category:Chapels by country used this version.

Salut, --LimoWreck 21:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Commons:Geocoding

Hello Jean-Pol GRANDMONT, at the Geocoding project we have noticed that you uploaded a number of pictures from one of the less covered regions on earth. Maybe you could consider adding coordinates to some of your images. They will show up on the WikiMiniAtlas and the Google Earth Commons-layer. You can find instructions on how to add coordinates to your images at Commons:Geocoding. Thank you in advance! The Geocoding team --EugeneZelenko 15:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I think procedure is not too hard :-) You just need to find subject on the hight resolution map (like http://maps.google.com) and add {{location dec}} or {{location}} in image description. Everything else will be done automatically. Of course, subject location on map will take some time... --EugeneZelenko 14:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for participating! I'm curious of the geocoding of one of your images however. The geocoding history for Image:Redu AEaJPG.jpg goes:

50°9′33″N, 5°8′35″E - Your original

50°0′27.2″N, 5°9′34.1″E - My correction based on Google Earth satellite imagery

50°0′27.2″N, 5°9′38″E - Your latest change 75m from the corrected location

Now, I've never been there, but comparing the photo to the satellite image, the building is the C shaped one. Your change puts the location to the other side of the nearby square. I wouldn't be so interested of a single image otherwise, but I'm curious of the difference in our coordinates. Which map service are you using for the data? Je comprends français aussi si ça va mieux. --Para 18:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for checking, it indeed looks better now. I was only afraid that there would be online map services giving different coordinates for the same place, but I'm glad it wasn't the case. I marvel at this new possibility of seeing satellite images, and enjoy trying to find the camera location for photos. I think you're doing a good job too, after some verification. :) Merci et bon continuation!

J'ai oublié vous mentionner la façon la plus façile pour créer les coordonnées. Moi j'utilise Ald-Hjl-Koord-en.kmz (il s'ouvrira en GE), qui me permet de copier le modèle rempli en format wiki, après avoir deplacé l'object au centre d'écran. Bien simple. --Para 08:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please do not blank pages...

to have them removed, use {{speedy|reason why you think the page should be deleted}}. Thanks. Siebrand 18:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Walloon Region

Bonjour,

Juiced lemon essai d'introduire dans la structure des catégories la notion des régions et des communautés. Il a ajouté Category:Walloon Region et Category:Flemish Region. Il a aussi changé une bonne partie des noms des catégories des provinces wallonnes.

En ce qui concerne le Category:Flemish Region, nous avons déjà demandé une deletion (voir Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Flemish Region et c'est clair que personne veut de cette complexité supplémentaire.

Dans un deuxième temps, il y a quelqu'un qui a ajouté Category:Walloon Region à la nomination de deletion, mais je ne sais pas si cette procédure sera accepté.

De toute façon, je considère que vous êtes un wikipedian très important, si pas le plus important en Wallonie, donc je ne suis pas chaud pour prendre une position avant de connaître votre avis (sur la nomination Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Flemish Region).

Pourriez vous aussi me communiquer votre avis sur le changement des noms des provinces: si vous êtes d'accord, je pourrais faire la demande au bot d'effectuer les transferts.

Cordialement. --Foroa 18:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Bonjour, Votre support sur Category_talk:Churches_in_Belgium#Resolution_september_2007 serait fort apprecié.

Je ne dis pas que la situation est gravée en pierre, mais je trouve que ces choses ne doivent uniquement changer ensemble et après un consensus entre les fournisseurs Belges d'images, pas parce qu'il y a quelqu'un qui décide de le faire autrement dans son coin. --Foroa 08:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Email

Beste Jean-Pol Grandmont,

hopelijk vind je het niet erg dat ik in het Nederlands schrijf... Ik ben de webmaster van deze website over mammoetbomen, waar ik al jaren alle mammoetbomen (Sequoiadendron giganteum) in België probeer te inventariseren en waar ook een overzicht staat van de dikste bomen van België (deze met de grootste omtrek) ([2]). Misschien bent u deze website al eens tegengekomen.

Op deze pagina's heb ik ook af en toe enkele van uw foto's gebruikt en hiervan had ik u graag op de hoogte gesteld. Ik had u graag ook een email gestuurd met een paar kleine vraagjes (kan u mij eens uw emailadres laten weten of dit in Wikimedia inschakelen bij "My preferences"?)

Cordialement, Tim Bekaert (User Tbc)

[edit] Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Image Image:Rendeux AR1bJPG.jpg, which was nominated by you for Quality Image status, was reviewed and has now been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎.

[edit] Image:Mammillaria geminispina JPG.jpg

Hi Jean-Pol, this is a nice plant but due to the lack of the typical strong spination unfortunately is not Mammillaria geminispina. Either the plant was misidentified or the right name tag was attached to the wrong plant. Are you maybe living close to the BG and can ask the responsible gardener for the plant's true name? Thanks and best regards, --Ies 17:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] showcasing your photos

I just wanted to comment that I liked very much your pictures, and I'm showcasing a few of them on my blog [3]. I saw on the image pages you wanted email if someone reused your images, but then you don't have email enabled. Let me know if I attributed properly your work and if there's any problem. -- Drini 23:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Stropharia aeruginosa JPG1a.jpg

Afrikaans | العربية | Català | Česky | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form) | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | ‪Norsk (bokmål)‬ | Polski | Português | Română | Русский | Српски / Srpski | Svenska | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | ‪中文(繁體)‬ | +/−

---

Hello!

Thank you for providing images to the Wikimedia Commons. Please keep in mind that images uploaded to the Commons should be useful to all users of Wikimedia projects. This is possible only if the images can be found by other people.

To allow others to find the images you uploaded here, the images should be in some place that can be found by navigating the category structure. This means that you should put the images into appropriate topic pages, categories, optionally galleries, or both of them (see Commons:Categories). To find good categories for your images, the CommonSense tool may help.

You can find a convenient overview of your uploaded files in this gallery.

The important point is that the images should be placed in the general structure somewhere. There are a large number of completely unsorted images on the Commons right now. If you would like to help to place some of those images where they can be found, please do!

Thank you. GeorgHH • talk   13:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category

Hi!, can you tell me which of your photos were categorised by me? Here are recent changes on all your photos in last 7 days. Regards, Yarl ^{Talk • PL} 16:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll correct it. Yarl ^{Talk • PL} 17:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Abbaye de Floreffe

D'abord mes félicitations pour la qualité de vos photos. J'apprécie tout particulièrement la grande variété de vues d'églises et d'abbayes de Belgique (Wallonie). J'ai créé l'article sur l'abbaye de Floreffe et me suis permis de l'illustrer avec votre photo. J'espère que c'est okay. J'avoue ne pas m'y retrouver dans ces règles de copyright de Wikicommons. Merci pour vos belle contributions. Zerged 4 février 2008

[edit] Li Pontia

Bonsoir. OK, la category:Li Pontia ayant été créée (pas par moi), je m'étais dit qu'y mettre la photo en question n'était pas absurde. Rien n'interdit d'ailleurs de catégoriser à la fois dans Li Pontia et dans Huy. Lykos 18:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] geo localisation

Bonjour Jean-Paul. J’aime beaucoup tes photographies, mais j’ai trouvé geo localisés près de Bavay deux photo de Dinant (Rocher Bayard et les Rivaves). J’ai fais la correction. Utilises-tu Google-earth ? Jean-Louis Hens (talk) 08:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Géo

Jean-Louis,

Merci pour ton message et ton aide. J'utilise en effet Google Earth mais dans le cas relevé j'ai plus que certainement été distrait.

Jean-Pol GRANDMONT 09:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Double pas cohérent

Bonjour Jean-Pol, je ne comprends pas très bien ce changement [4]. En effet, cette image: Image:Arlon JPG02B.JPG est de bien meilleure qualité que celle ci : Image:Arlon E2aJPG.jpg. A remplacer, je remplacerai plutôt dans l'autre sens. Merci de me dire si j'ai raté un épisode :) En attendant, je retire la notice pour ne pas que quelqu'un supprime l'image trop vite. notafish }<';> 22:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Re bonsoir :) Excuse moi d'insister, mais pourquoi souhaites-tu garder la dernière photo (Image:Arlon E2aJPG.jpg) alors que l'autre est de meilleure qualité (plus jolies couleurs, plus nette)? C'est vraiment dommage car cela ne donne pas le même crédit à ton travail. notafish }<';> 19:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Félicitation

Bonjour,

Je trouve que les photos que vous avez prises pour Mons sont très belles et très réussies ! Vos photos mettent en valeur la cité du Doudou et la Wallonie. Merci !

vi:User:Dragon de Mons

[edit] Haine-Saint-Paul

Bonjour Jean-Pol.

Apparemment, il y a une petite erreur ici Image:Haine-Saint-Pierre E1JPG.jpg.

Cette église Saint-Ghislain se trouve sur le territoire de l'ancienne commune Haine-Saint-Paul (juste, tu peux le vérifier sur http://www.viamichelin.be , cherchez le "Rue de la Station" à Haine-Saint-Paul, et cliquez sur "satellite" en bas à droite, et tu la verras). Mais en effet, c'est tout près de la limite communale). L'église de Haine-Saint-Pierre même (c'est l'Eglise Saint-Pierre) se trouve dans le sud, Place de l'Eglise, juste visible sur Viamichelin. Donc peut-être une destination pour une prochaine voyage dans la région ;-)

Donc il semble mieux de corriger le nom de cette image, pour éviter des erreurs? J'ai déjà corrigé la description. Peut-être tu peux le télécharger avec un nom correct?

Voyez aussi [5], c'est un autre site sur l'internet qui peut nous aider à correctement identifier les églises, ce qui n'est pas toujours facile quand il y a plusieurs églises dans une ville.

cordialement, --LimoWreck (talk) 22:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Bonsoir Limo Wreck

Contrairement à ce que tu penses, le document Image:Haine-Saint-Pierre E1JPG.jpg est correctement nommé et situé. En effet j’habite la région et la confirmation de ces données m’ont été fournies sur place. Il y a effectivement deux églises à Haine-Saint-Pierre. Et même si l’église principale est dédiée à Saint-Pierre (50° 27’15’’N – 04°12’01’’E), celle qui est dédiée à Saint-Ghislain (50° 27’43’’ N – 04°11’59’’E) est une seconde paroisse se trouvant rue de la Station, sur le territoire l’ancienne commune d’Haine-Saint-Pierre contrairement à ce qu’indiquent certains sites.

En ce qui concerne l’église d’Haine-Saint-Paul (50° 27’16’’N – 04°11’19’’E), elle fait l’objet de ma photographie Image:Haine-Saint-Paul 060113.JPG.

Amicalement.

Jean-Pol GRANDMONT 18:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Bonjour.

Donc, c'est bizarre ... ce n'est pas seulement ce site ([6]) qui indique que l'église trouve à Haine-Saint-Paul,

• mais également le site du Diocèse de Tournai même (voyez [7]),
• même le "Conseil Communal" de La Louvière parle ici [8] de la "Fabrique d'église Saint Ghislain à Haine-Saint-Paul",
• et avec cet outil http://carto1.wallonie.be/ogeadinter/viewer.htm sur le Portail cartographique de la Région wallonne, tu peux vérifier que cette partie de la Rue de la Station se trouve effectivement sur le territoire de l'ancienne commune Haine-Saint-Paul (tu peux activer les limites administratives des anciennes communes dans le menu à gauche).
• Le site "Combles et Clochers" indique le même [9]
• En fait, je ne trouve aucun site que prouve autrement, et tous les sources officiels montrent que cette section de la Rue de la Station se trouve sur le territoire de Saint-Paul (bien que c'est tout près de Haine-Saint-Pierre). Tous parlent de deux églises à Haine-Saint-Paul (l'église Saint-Paul et l'église Saint-Ghislain), et seulement une église à Haine-Saint-Pierre, (l'église Saint-Pierre même donc)

Je crains donc que l'homme de la rue qui peut-être prétend que l'église se trouve sur le territoire de Haine-Saint-Pierre n'a pas eu tout à fait raison, car la Ville de La Louvière, et le diocèse, et les cartes officielles de la région wallonne disent le contraire ... ;-) --LimoWreck (talk) 20:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] juste pour vous le dire

Je viens de placer deux de vos photos sur l'article château de Grand-Bigard. Bonne journée--Rosier (talk) 22:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gallery

Bonjour,

J'ai vu que vous avez régulièrement ajouté une "galerie" dans la description de vos photos, comme ici ( [10] ).

Mais les derniers jours, quelqu'un est en train d'effacer ces galeries. [11], [12], etc, etc... (entre autre, il efface également les titres pour marquer la description, la licence, etc). Je trouve ça étrange qu'on efface tous ces informations ajouté par un autre utilisateur (ajouté par vous dans ce cas), sans commentaire, sans informer, ou sans demander. C'est pourquoi j'ai défait beaucoup de ses changements... Je ne sais pas quels sont les intentions de cet utilisateurs, mais j'ai voulu quand-même faire cette petite remarque sur votre page de discussions, afin que vous poussiez contrôler ce que certains utilisateurs sont en train de faire avec vos images (ou les descriptions), si ça vous intéresse. Cordialement ;-) --LimoWreck (talk) 19:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Image Image:Fagus_sylvatica_JPG2a.jpg, which was nominated by you for Quality Image status, was reviewed and has now been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎.

[edit] License change to File:Relieur JPG01.jpg

In your recent edit to File:Relieur JPG01.jpg, you changed the license tag from cc-by-2.5 to GFDL|cc-by-3.0. It is permissible to add new licenses but, sorry, it is not generally permissible to revoke a license. (See "What if I change my mind?" in the Creative Commons FAQ.) In effect, your edit added a license and now neither can be revoked and anyone can choose which one they prefer. I have listed both licenses in the "Licensing" section for the photo. —Danorton (talk) 13:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Ça, c'est ce que la majorité des administrateurs de Commons veulent nous faire croire ; mais au final, nous sommes tous des « juristes en herbe » qui ne lisons pas assez les licences. Je suis en train d'essayer de te défendre sur Commons talk:Licensing#Prohibit revoking license. →Diti the penguin — 13:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I hope that he doesn't need "defense." My only aim is to help and properly describe the image and its licenses. If I have made a mistake, I am more than happy to correct it. In the instance of File:Relieur JPG01.jpg, the license originally selected was cc-by-2.5 which is a perpetual license. In assigning that license he waived his right to subsequently revoke it. While Commons allows for certain specific restrictions, it doesn't allow for subsequent license revocation. I am happy to provide more information or to be informed with more accurate information. —Danorton (talk) 14:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Je demande à ce que la dernière licence soit respectée car c'est mon droit jusqu'à preuve du contraire.

Jean-Pol GRANDMONT 21:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The first license you agreed to was cc-by-2.5, an English-language license detailed here. This is a perpetual license:

3.   License Grant. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright) license to exercise the rights in the Work...

The license states that you can revoke ("withdraw") the license under certain specific circumstances, but you have not described any such circumstance. I don't intend to criticize you or to defend Commons policy, but only to accurately and fairly reflect the facts. —Danorton (talk) 03:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the meaning of “perpetual” should be taken 100% accurate here. Let's imagine the author publishes his work under a CC-by-nc license. According to you, the fact that this license has near-infinite copyright terms would mean that latter uses of the work under a less restrictive license would be prohibited. Are they, actually? No. For me, what you are trying to do is to interpret the license terms so that you can justify your changes and chose the free license that you like (sorry for the bolded text, I'm not attacking you, I just want to give my text a better impact ;). Maybe I'm wrong, but try to understand what the uploader thinks of your acts. Creative Commons licenses aren't selective based on their level of freedom. PS: oops? :D →Diti the penguin — 06:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not following your argument as it applies in this instance. What's not true here?

1. The author has assigned two licenses to this item, both of which are perpetual and non-revocable.
2. Anyone may use either license.
3. The page truthfully and accurately lists both licenses and indicates that anyone may use the license they prefer.

—Danorton (talk) 20:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] (réponse) Insertion d'image dans Commons:Featured picture candidates

Pour voir les liens, il faut remplacer les valeurs par défaut par des "~~~"

Cela ressemble à ceci:

===[[:{{subst:SUBPAGENAME}}]]=== <small>Voting period ends on <b>{{subst:#time: j M Y| +9 days}}</b> at <b>{{subst:#time: H:i:s}}</b></small><br> [[{{subst:SUBPAGENAME}}|300px|Une description sommaire du sujet]] *{{Info}} created by ~~~ - uploaded by ~~~ - nominated by -- ~~~~ *{{Support}} -- ~~~~

--Luc Viatour (talk) 05:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Idem ici ton nom n'est pas affiché correctement.... Tu est certain d'être logué sur common et pas sur wiki FR? Je te conseille de te dé-loguer et te re-loguer. Ensutite quand tu introduit ceci: --~~~~ tu devrais avoir le lien vers ta page. --Luc Viatour (talk) 12:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Bonjour, je me permets de mettre mon grain de sel... Est-ce que vous n'auriez pas coché la case "Signature brute (sans lien automatique)" dans vos préférences ? --Eusebius (talk) 13:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Important proposal

I wrote a proposal for equalizing the different picture formats on FPC Please have a look. Best regards --Richard Bartz (talk) 20:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Photographe

Monsieur.

Après avoir découvert votre page sur Commons, je me suis permis de vous inclure dans ma rubrique "D'autres photographes talentueux" sur ma page Commons.

Cordialement.

--ComputerHotline (talk) 17:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] FP promotion

The image has been promoted to Featured picture The image File:Laeken Se1aJPG.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Laeken Se1aJPG.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

[edit] FP promotion

The image has been promoted to Featured picture The image File:Fagus sylvatica Purpurea JPG4a.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fagus sylvatica Purpurea JPG4a.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

[edit] Morlanwelz-Mariemont

I try to get all the botanical pictures off the park, only in the category:"Parc de Mariemont". This is a subcategory off "Morlanwelz-Mariemont" and "Parks in Belgium". Now the pictures of Morlanwelz-Mariemont wich have nothing to do with the park are drowned. Examples File:Mariemont sporen.JPG, File:Mariemont Splitsing.JPG and File:Mariemont tunnel lijn 30.JPG. In principle there the number of categories of a file should be limited. A picture should either be in the main category or a subcategory but not both.

Smiley.toerist (talk) 08:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Transcluded user templates with embedded license templates

Hi Jean-Pol GRANDMONT,

There is an issue with your user license and Commons policy. I have drafted a post about it here: User:Slaunger/Sandbox/COM:AN message, which I intend to post on COM:AN shortly. Since your user name is mentioned explicitly, I thought you should have a possibility to preview it and possibly correct any factual mistakes. Cheers, --Slaunger (talk) 19:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jean-Pol, Its seems like virtually all users I contact, which have followed the same process is willing to change it such that the templates are in accordance with Commons policy. Therefore it seems unlikely that the policy will be changed, and since you have also asked for assistance to fix your user template, I thought we as well might get started. In relation to that I would like to ask you if it is OK if I create two subpages in your user name space, User:Jean-Pol GRANDMONT/My and User:Jean-Pol GRANDMONT/MyLicense. The first one will basically be a copy of Template:Jean-PolGRANDMONTCredit with the license extracted, and the second one will be the /My user template side by side with the license templates. The latter will be the one you should use in the future using

{{subst:User:Jean-Pol GRANDMONT/MyLicense}}

on your file pages. Once I have made that and you have approved that it looks OK (using a single file page as a test), we could schedule a job at a bot operator replacing all occurances of {{Jean-PolGRANDMONTCredit}} with {{subst:User:Jean-Pol GRANDMONT/MyLicense}} on your 2800 file pages.

If this all seems a little overwhelming, don't dispair. We will do it step by step such that you can follow the process and get a good understanding of the changes I would like to make.

Just reply here. I am watching.

Cheers, --Slaunger (talk) 19:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jean-Pol, I am back and ready. I have now extracted the license template from you user template and placed it in User:Jean-Pol GRANDMONT/Credit. this is a template which will continue to be simply transcluded into your image pages, and you can maintain it centrally. It is used in User:Jean-Pol GRANDMONT/License alongside with a CC-BY-SA-3.0 license. (Note that I selected slightly different subpage names that I originally proposed, I think the names used here are better). Now, in the future you should add your credit template as well as the license by adding

Permission={{subst:User:Jean-Pol GRANDMONT/License}}

in your image pages in the {{Information}} template. As a test I have done this substitution manually in File:Conques JPG03.jpg. Please review if you are satisfied with the result (the substitution first generated two extra line breaks in the permission field, but I have now adjusted your new user templates such that they will not appear again). If you can confirm this kind of change I will make a test run with my bot on 20 of your image files. --Slaunger (talk) 19:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Test run with 20 template substitutions I have checked each one of them and they seem OK. Can I proceed provided I get the bot flag I have requested? --Slaunger (talk) 23:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I have to hold my horse though until a bureaucrat comes by and gives me a bot flag on my bot request. --Slaunger (talk) 20:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jean-Pol, the bot flag has been granted, and I have initiated my first job, which will replace your old user template on 1000 image pages of your this evening. The remaining pages will be done tomorrow. --Slaunger (talk) 20:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Jean-Pol. I am not completely done yet though. I did +1000 replacements yesterday, and 1000 replacements two days ago (I have committed myself to limit the bot to about 1000 edit per day), but there are still 300-400 replacements left (which I anticipate will be done later this evening (if my wife does not turn off my PC again, while it is working - arrrgh )). Once all transclusions of {{Jean-PolGRANDMONTCredit}} has been replaced by the new ones, I would like to nominate it for deletion, just to get rid of it once and for all. --Slaunger (talk) 13:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done with all 2754 template replacements. I will now nominate your old template for deletion. --Slaunger (talk) 19:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Once again thanks!!

http://www.wereldpagina.nl/index.php/Bestand:Bas-Languedoc_Carcassonne.jpg

[edit] Photographers Blackbelt

		THE PHOTOGRAPHER'S BLACKBELT
		J'ai l'honneur de vous décerner la Photographers Blackbelt (ceinture noire des photographes) pour vos photos remarquables et excellentes. --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bürstegg Biberkopf.jpg

I have uploaded a new version of this picture! Maybe you would like to change your vote! --Simonizer (talk) 06:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Please link images

BotMultichillT 05:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Image:0 Trazegnies - CH - JPG 11951211.jpg was uncategorized on 6 October 2009.

[edit] Watermill

Hello, I used your image of the Hotton watermill in an article I wrote for a children's magazine. You asked to be sent a copy of the article, but I can't find a valid e-mail address for you. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 17:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Charmilles

Cher Jean-Pol,
moi aussi, je ne trouve pas d'adresse courriel valable, donc j'écris ici
Merci beaucoup pour les images de charmilles
deux images sont incluses dans mon vidéo sur un poème de Paul Verlaine, j'espère qu'il vous plaira
Ariette Oubliée No 4
Amitiés
David
Dwsolo (talk) 15:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Ganoderma applanatum JPG1.jpg

Allô Jean-Pol!

Est-ce-que tu es sûr que c'est le Polypore aplani (Ganoderma applanatum). Je pense que c'est l'amadouvier (Fomes fomentarius). Ce champignon est trés (trôp ?) épais/bouffi pour G. applanatum. La couleur n'est pas vrai aussi. Qu'est-ce que tu pense? (I think it is better to go on in English ;-)) --Toffel (talk) 22:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)