User talk:Yann/archives 13

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

A barnstar for you![edit]

Brilliant Idea Barnstar Hires.png The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
Thanks for promoting my image. This was a good idea to promote this. Thanks Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 01:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks again Yann. You gave a good idea to add geocoding --Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 21:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

photo of David Jackson from Flickr[edit]

Thank you for checking the publishing terms for the photo of David Jackson that I uploaded: File:David_Jackson_(rock_musician).jpg. The photographer Luca Fiaccavento did give me permission to use this photo, and I forwarded the email he sent me to Commons:OTRS. I hope the photo can be kept now. Please let me know if I can do anything else. I am a regular user in the English Wikipedia but I do not know much about the Wikimedia Commons. Greetings. Mark in wiki (talk) 18:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Why did you delete my image?[edit]

Hello,

You deleted a file I uploaded called: IDF_rabbanut_emblem.jpg You made a mistake, as I will explain. This is an important file, which is located in a couple of Wikipedia articles.

My Name is Alon N. and I'm a Captain (Res.) in the IDF (Israel Defense Force). A few years ago, I was one of the people responsible for the creation and manufacturing of this emblem. As you know, only about 4 years ago the Military Rabbinatte became a Corps within the IDF. I helped design this unique emblem, together with one of the chief graphic designers in one of the IDF units, responsible for job.

Following the successful creation of this emblem, we not only distributed the logo within the IDF, but also to civilians, for free.

The logo is not copyrighted, and is for free use, precisely as all other Official IDF logos are.


Please cancel the deletion of this file and restore it to its original locations.

I will be happy to clarify anything else, if needed. Please contact me via email: alonnardi@yahoo.com or this page.

Alon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alonnardi (talk • contribs)

Deletion of Pakistan Air Force aircraft images[edit]

Hi, I noticed you have deleted this image for copyright violation: File:JF-17_background_Mirage_5_ROSE_foreground.jpg
Can I ask why, when if you go to the original source (a forum post) and scroll to the bottom of the post, the uploader clearly states that he is releasing the image under an appropriate free license? Did you even bother to check? --Hj108 (talk) 23:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, you are right. Restored. Yann (talk) 05:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. Can you please restore this image too - I believe it also has the same permission stated at its source: File:Two JF-17 readying for take-off.jpg
--Hj108 (talk) 10:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Done. Yann (talk) 11:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Undeletion Request[edit]

Hi Yann,

At Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2011-11#File:Pregnant woman.jpg, you marked the request as done, but currently there is only a redirect. --  Docu  at 07:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The image is there. Yann (talk) 07:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
There is just a redirect to the mirrored version of the image. --  Docu  at 08:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
OK, done. I didn't understand first. Yann (talk) 08:05, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Yann[edit]

By the way, when I e-mailed you, I noticed that on my 1280x1024 screen , your user page sets with the contents box on top of the Babelbox. It's fine on my wider screen. This is under Firefox 6.0.2.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Copyright[edit]

Hello, --[1] -- Japanese law, the sentence is subject to copyright. Many of indoor photographs in particular are not permitted. Thank you. --Aimaimyi (talk) 01:52, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Eiffel tower and the seine at night.jpg[edit]

Hi, why did you restore this image? The Eiffel Tower is centre-image, the image is clearly framed to have it as a major element, so this cannot qualify for de minimis. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:12, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but the ordinary light on the Eiffel tower is not copyrigthed. Only the show called La Mode en images is. It is very clear when reading the court case, but nobody actually cared to do that until now. Yann (talk) 16:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Yann, could you please link the undel discussion on the file's talk page? - I couldn't find it. Thanks. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 21:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
See Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2011-11#File:Paris 2010Feb 218.jpg. Yann (talk) 13:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Perfect now. Thanks! I have also added it on bottom of the DR. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 02:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

your resignation[edit]

I am formally requesting your resignation as administrator. You have repeatedly violated the requirements for listing deletion requests. In particular, listing hundreds of files that happen to have the word facebook in them, without verifying that they were indeed copied from facebook. Also, scripting requests at more than 1 per minute, and failing to post detailed rationale.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 03:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

File move request[edit]

Bon jour!
As you are aware I just uploaded a new version of File:Air France A380 F-HPJE.jpg. Only after uploading I realized that the second A380 has different serial number. The old one is F-HPJE and the new one is F-HPJA. So, I am requesting you to move the image to File:Air France A380 F-HPJA.jpg (This will also involve moving the new FPC nomination page) --Jovian Eye storm 05:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I have uploaded the reshot version as a new file (File:Air France A380 F-HPJA.jpg) and nominated at FPC. I would request you to withdraw VI nomination of the old image since this one is much better. --Jovian Eye storm 13:00, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Düsseldorf Rheinturm - Lichtzeitpegel.jpg[edit]

Hello Yann, why You've removed and deleted the Category:Time 16:56. The binary clock shows the time 16:56:39 at this moment, where is the problem? regards, --Pitlane02 talk 13:16, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

We don't create categories for time. There would be millions, and I don't see the use. Yann (talk) 13:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I think, you've not seen these 850 Categories, and it's maximum 1440 subcategories in worst case! But I'll accept your opion, it's not important enough for me. Thanks for your answer and regards --Pitlane02 talk 16:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
One use for time cats is generating clocks for user pages and off-WMF projects like the one here.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
OK fine, if it is useful. Yann (talk) 17:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fêtes Lumières Lyon.jpg[edit]

The problem is not about the monument but about the light show ! Please read the introduction of Category:Fête des lumières and please delete the file. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Same for Commons:Deletion requests/File:La fontaine des Jacobins pendant la fête des lumières 2010 à Lyon (2ème arrondissement).JPG and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fontaine de la place des Jacobins.jpg where I read you dare writing "no copyright on light" ! I'm sorry but you were not aware of French law on that topic. It's not just "light", it's "light art" and "light shows". Therefore copyightable and there's no FoP in France. It's like taking a still image from a motion picture. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

No, the argument for Category:Fête des lumières is wrong. 1. There is no copyright on light. 2. Even on the Eiffel tower, there is a copyright only for the show La Mode en Images, which is a complex show with sound, animations, and fireworks. No such thing here, these are just some colored light. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree completely. It seems clear that an elaborate son et lumière might have a copyright -- La Mode en Images certainly does, but simple night floodlights, even periodically changing colored lights do not.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
If we had a still image from the show La Mode en Images, we'd delete it, right ? Well it's the same here : the shows at the fête des Lumières ARE artworks, and generally in movement. Therefore stills showing those shows are copyvio. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
For instance, don't tell me that this, this or this are not elaborate enought to be copyrighted ! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 19:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
As for the Eiffel Tower, you're wrong, any publication of a picture of the Eiffel Tower by night is illegal without authorization because the light display has been copyrighted. You may dislike that idea (I do) but Commons has to respect the law. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 19:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
boingboing.net is not an definitive reference on copyright. It just repeats what the company has quite successfully claimed, but it is wrong. You didn't read the court case, did you? You should read on some real serious reference on the subject before talking about it... Yann (talk) 20:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
So do you suggest to undelete ALL files about the fête des Lumières and the Eiffel Tower by night that we've previously deleted ? (for coherence) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 06:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
May be. At the very least, we need a complete review of them. Yann (talk) 04:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
(we could switch to French but I prefer that our discussion can be read and understood by other users)
What about this French lawyer who also claims, in one of her answers, that commercial use of pictures of the Eiffel Tower by night needs authorization ? Is it not serious enough ? This website also says that - and also that fireworks and light shows are protected (or at least can be protected) by copyrights. It also mentions the fact the example of the Louvre by night and says "if the light display is not protected, the picture is authorized". So that means that we should check if a light show or a light display is protected before considering it free for Commons. I suppose we can say that, dy default, most light displays aren't copyrighted (because generally not artistic or original) and most light shows are protected (because a show is definitely an artwork). --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 06:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Another link, far better : this document of the SNAPIG (page 23) mentions the decision of the court of Créteil in March 1998 that states the copyright of the light display on the Eiffel Tower. Nevertheles I also found this page (about a debate at the French senate) that shows that the question of public buildings in photography is highly complicated ! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
All these are comments in blogs. I don't rely on comments by third parties, especially when they contradict the court decision. I rely on facts. The Cour de cassation said the show La Mode en images has a copyright. Point. There is absolutely no mention of ordinary lighting on the Eiffel tower. That's the fact. Yann (talk) 04:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
The website of the SNAPIG is not a blog and it mentions a court decision. Why don't you consider it ?
And since you speak about the decision of the Cour de cassation about La Mode en images, could you give me a link for that please ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)].
Here it is [2]. Yann (talk) 13:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for that. What about the court decision in Créteil in 1998 ? Do you really think the SNAPIG has invented it ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 13:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, this is not a legal document, it is an essay, and it is not written by a lawyer, but by Catherine Mallaval, journaliste à Libération. I will look at the details of the court decision, but if I understand correctly, it is this decision that the Cour de Cassation confirmed in 2003. So it should not be different that what the CC said. Yann (talk) 18:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Another thing (that I've already asked you but you haven't answered) : you really think light shows like this, this or this are not elaborate enought to be copyrighted ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
This is like a photo of a play. AFAIK it doesn't get a copyright. A movie of the show would probably. Yann (talk) 13:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Well I'm not sure a photo of a play can be considered as free to use ! Again, it's like taking a still image from a movie ! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 13:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure where is the limit, but if photos of plays would get a copyright, we have a problem: Category:Plays and also Category:Operas... Yann (talk) 18:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
You're right. But how could we know ? I've always wondered about a possible problem concerning concerts too. After all, plays, operas and concerts are artistic performances and they should be protected, don't you think ? Why would we be able to photograph freely plays or concerts and not movies, books or sculptures ? Apart from that, in the case photos of plays are OK, and even if we may consider some light shows as plays, I still think works like this one or this one can be considered as videos or films since the projections are quite complex (and in movement). Last thing : fireworks are supposed to be protected in France, so why light shows wouldn't be ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:06, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

At least we need coherence between your decision and this one or this older one. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 10:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Did you see this: Commons:Bistro#Bientôt le FOP en droit français ? Si ça passe, toute cette question sera obsolète dans 15 jours. Yann (talk) 15:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Ce serait génial ! ...Sauf que ça ne résoudrait rien à notre discussion sur la Fête des Lumières puisque ce ne sont pas des installations "permanentes" donc pas possible de prendre en compte la future (oups... éventuelle) loi. En revanche, il est clair que ça résoudrait le problème de la Tour Eiffel la nuit (hors show Mode en images qui n'est pas non plus permanent). --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Error reports, etc.[edit]

Yann, I think you have misunderstood the NARA error reports page somehow. The purpose is to allow corrections of the NARA catalog records. You can't "fix" them yourself. Indeed, please don't move things around and change the names, because you are confusing things. The metadata is supposed to match the source in the NARA catalog. Some of these might not actually change at all, if it is the spelling of the original work's title, for example. These are things that the institution will look at, and possibly change, and then I can update Commons if they do. The image description template has a field for Wikimedians to annotate or add their own description.

I understand very well that this page is to report errors to NARA. However I don't understand why would like to keep the errors in Commons. Surely, the errors have to be corrected here too, isn't? And I just did that, and only that, so what's the problem? Yann (talk) 06:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Please reread what I wrote. I certainly didn't say that I want errors preserved on Commons. Rather, NARA's experts will look at the error reports and decide what actually needs changing, and then we should update our information. Indeed, I think that at least one of the changes may have been incorrect, since the spelling you changed in "lichons" was in a quoted title, and may have been Ansel Adams' original caption, which should not change. Dominic (talk) 18:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, then I don't understand your point. The corrections I made are quite obvious, including the spelling of lichons instead of lichens. Yann (talk) 18:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

This is the same reason that I asked that any edits to images be uploaded under a new file name. I don't understand why you are continuing to directly edit the original images themselves. There is value to both Commons and to the institution in preserving a version of the original archival scan, and there is no real extra effort involved in uploading a new version with a different name. Dominic (talk) 17:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I upload under a different name when I made substantial changes in an image. The original file is always available in old versions, and I don't delete any file anyway, so I don't understand why you say that I don't preserve the original archival scan. And yes, uploading under a different name is more work than just uploading a new version. Yann (talk) 06:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Any change that alters the original archival scan is substantive. Overwriting files is generally a bad idea, but it's even worse here where we are dealing with the original master files of these scans. These should exist somewhere on their own. It makes little sense to expect the end user to know how to download the image from the file history, and to deprive them of the option of different resolutions. Moreover, you're not even marking the uploads as derivatives. Please just hit the upload button and copy and paste the original image description there, and you are nearly done; it's not much harder. Dominic (talk) 18:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Actually, what takes time is the referencing of the different versions to each others, and I take great care to do it, otherwise it is impossible to find other versions. But ok, I will do that. Actually, I have found during this process several files which are exact duplicate. Yann (talk) 18:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Gandhi's images[edit]

I nominated few of the Gandhi images that you uploaded because they lack pre-1951 publication sources. Thanks.--Officer (talk) 21:06, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Avoid overwriting existing files[edit]

Hi Yann, you shouldn't overwrite files like File:"Spirit of '76" enroute to San Clemente, California, with General Secretary Brezhnev - NARA - 194524.tif. Please upload under a new name. Multichill (talk) 22:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Deleting orphan files[edit]

Hi Yann, thanks for the message. But how Commons delete orphan files then? Cheers!

File_talk:Donald_Duck_-_Derivative_of_NARA_513868.svg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File_talk:Donald_Duck_-_Derivative_of_NARA_513868.svg 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 talk, 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.
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!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Ajbp (talk) 19:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

File:"Come_On_Fellows^_The_U.S.O's_for_the_U.S.A."_-_NARA_-_514069.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:"Come_On_Fellows^_The_U.S.O's_for_the_U.S.A."_-_NARA_-_514069.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 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!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Ajbp (talk) 19:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:British lion and Union flag.jpg[edit]

I reopened your closure of this -- as it is now, it is a copyvio. The uploader must change the license to CC-BY to match the licenses of the underlying works.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Grafik Magazine[edit]

Regarding your deletion of a Grafik Magazine cover, I'm a little bewildered by your motivation, "out of scope". Magazine covers are clearly in scope, as there is a category with lots of such images, many of which are in use. Random names are very annoying, but not a reason for deletion. If there was no license, the image should be deleted. I have no memory of a missing license. I may be wrong, but the other images by the same uploader have licenses.

I find it important to keep at least one image, either the one referred to, or perhaps File:GRAFIK179 COVER w800.jpg. It makes the WP article about the magazine much more attractive. (I'm not interested in this magazine - it's a general principle.) --Jonund (talk) 20:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

AFAIK, this looks like a self published magazine. There is no information whatsoever, and the title is meaningless. In addition, we need a formal written permission. Yann (talk) 07:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
It was published by Designflux Limited and, later, Woodbridge & Rees. Information about the image can be added. The title is not a big issue (if it disturbs very much, it might be changed, although that is discouraged). We could drop an email to the magazine and ask them to verify the release of the image to Commons. --Jonund (talk) 11:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the title IS an issue. It is the primarily mean by which a file is identified. And why didn't you add the information about the publisher to the description pages? And yes, I think a formal permission from the magazine publisher is needed. Thanks, Yann (talk) 16:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Mass AFV files deletion attempts[edit]

Hello.

Firstly, thank you very much for saving numerous files nominated by anonymous 98.88.***, thought to be Vikiped, a user blocked in ru-wiki, what about these (similar situations): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and so on? I don't know whether you have read Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Vandalism#98.88.92.10, if not, please, read and comment. Personally I think that there're already grounds for blocking.

Also please see User talk:Jameslwoodward#Ancient AFV files deletion (several 1 2 3 4 files have already been deleted). Thank you beforehand. — Ain92 (talk) 14:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I would not have deleted these. Please ask for undeletion on Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests‎ for images when there is a clear source, and an appropriate license. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Ул. Стойкости от пр. м. Жукова.jpg[edit]

Hi! You have decided to close this nomination by saying "No valid reason for deletion". Then how do you comment on my argument that buildings are inseparable part of the street and therefore primary objects of the photo. Artem Karimov (talk) 13:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, everybody but you agrees with me. In addition, the buildings are very ordinary, and I don't even think they would get a copyright alone. Sorry but your claim does not hold. Yann (talk) 13:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
"Everybody" is not a valid argument. Here "everybody" asserted one argument but the nomination was closed in another way. Also, there is no notion of de minimis in the Russian law. Artem Karimov (talk) 14:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Please stop arguing here. It is useless. If you have valid arguments, open an deletion request. Wait! You already did that. So no, don't do it. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Bear in mind, though, that admins cannot ignore Commons policies nor any applicable copyright law even if a majority of users expressing opinions want them to do so. I am renominating this file for deletion. Artem Karimov (talk) 14:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Give it a couple minutes or something![edit]

Thanks for the copyright infringing notices and all that here, but can you at least give a person a few minutes to tweak everything? With the fancy new upload wizard, I've yet to figure out how to get the images uploaded with OTRS pending tags without everything looking all screwed up.

Over at en.wikipedia, the bots that do this notification for image uploads were finally "told" to wait five minutes or so. Can't you guys do that over here? Be patient for crying out loud, some of us are actually trying to do decent work here without "New Messages" flashing at us six seconds after every upload. Thank you. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 17:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Copyviol images[edit]

Hi. I saw that you deleted File:Manuel Neuer10.jpg. Almost all images uploaded by User:Albumjuventus2012 are in the same conditions, most of them are © Getty Images, while File:Oleksiygai.jpg, File:Razvan Rat3.jpg, File:Mikitahrian5.jpg, File:Willan borges da silva2.jpg, File:Giocatori dello shakatar donestk.jpg and File:Rybka 2011.jpg are © Валерий Дудуш and File:Carlos Correa1.jpg in © Илья Хохлов (I don't know if this is suitable with {{football.ua}} permission). File:Cleustka 2011.jpg should instead be OK. I would be grateful (if you have the time) if you could delete the other copyvios without having to mark them one by one. Thanks in advance. --Simo82 (talk) 17:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Restaurant Week Logo Undeletion[edit]

Thank you very much for your help with the Restaurant Week logo undeletion. Appreciate your help.Varunr (talk) 09:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Gaarder jostein.jpg[edit]

Hi dear. File:Gaarder jostein.jpg is have Copyright and photographer writing in Meta Data "this photography have premision for use" please giuding me. Best Regards Mamad TALK

Promotion en VI[edit]

Bonjour Yann.
A mon humble avis, tu as pris une lourde responsabilité de clore la discussion par une promotion concernant cette image alors que le débat la concernant n'était pas clos, et que par ailleurs une discussion très importante est en cours sur le sujet général ici.
Selon moi, selon d'autres, selon les règles (guidelines) telles qu'elles sont écrites (même si tu es en désaccord avec elles, auquel cas il faut t'exprimer sur la page ci-dessus), et nonobstant le conflit récurrent qui m'oppose au proposant (je ne suis pas hélas pas le seul, et pour info il est indéfiniment exclu de la wikipédia allemande pour son comportement), cette image ne remplit pas les critères pour être promue, et le débat était en pleine évolution, sans avoir définitivement été tranché.
Certes j'aurais dû m'opposer pour maintenir la parité des votes 3/3 (c'est donc ce que je ferai la prochaine fois), mais je préfère toujours débattre avant de prendre une décision. J'ai eu tort de me conformer à ce que je crois être l'esprit de "Commons".
En tout état de cause, tu viens de créer un précédent qui, entre les mains d'un procédurier tel que le proposant, au comportement général déjà maintes fois relevé négativement, ne manquera pas de peser sur le débat en cours, et de le fausser.
Bref, tu n'as commis aucune irrégularité formelle, évidemment, mais tu as en quelque sorte "forcé la main", en catimini, et c'est embêtant.
Si tu n'as pas mesuré le sens de ta décision, j'espère que ce court message amical t'éclairera.
Si en revanche tu l'as fait exprès, alors considère que je ne t'ai rien dit, mais que je suis fermement opposé à ta démarche et à cette façon de faire, et que je veillerai, autant qu'il me sera possible, à empêcher qu'elle se renouvelle.
Bien cordialement,--Jebulon (talk) 18:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Salut,
Désolé, je n'ai pas suivi de près cette discussion. Nous avons eu jusqu’à présent des sujets (scopes) très détaillés (trop à mon avis), aussi je ne suis pas contre des règles plus strictes pour définir un sujet acceptable. Si cela pose problème, je peux annuler cette promotion. On peut toujours aussi retirer le statut de VI par un autre vote. Yann (talk) 19:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Bonjour.
Non, je ne crois pas qu'on puisse annuler une promotion en VI, hélas. Pour ce qui est de la définition des règles, c'est justement le sujet de la discussion mentionnée plus haut. Tu es cordialement invité à y jeter un oeil, et naturellement, à y participer. Merci de ta réponse en tous cas.--Jebulon (talk) 11:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Absa Group logo.png[edit]

Bonjour, J'ai répondu à votre commentaire sur cette page. Je pense que cette interprétation de PD-textlogo est erronée. Au plaisir de continuer cette discussion avec vous. Letartean (talk) 19:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Bolero PD[edit]

According to Template:PD-two, works have to be PD in their country of original and the US to be hosted on Commons, and as far as I can tell, Bolero is not PD in the US.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Ciels![edit]

Salut Yann, Je tourne en QI autour de tes images hindoues, mais j'ai un problème avec les ciels qui sont toujours bruités, granuleux, notamment File:Courtyard, Mehrangarh Fort, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India.jpg qui me plais bien, bien que le pigeon du premier plan ne soit pas en grande forme. Un débruitage des ciels ... si tu as le temps.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, je vais essayer. Merci pour tes revues. Yann (talk) 19:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
J'ai fait une nouvelle version de cette photo avec une correction du contraste et de la balance des couleurs. Si j’enlève du bruit, j’enlève aussi de la netteté, si qui ne me semble pas très bon dans ce cas. Merci pour ton aide, Yann (talk) 15:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
En fait il faut faire un masque sur le ciel seulement et enlever le bruit; avec quel logiciel travailles-tu? --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Avec Gimp. Yann (talk) 18:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
je ne suis pas très connaisseur de ce logiciel mais je le crois capable de faire ce travail simple, qui prend quelques clics de souris. Jebulon est un pro sur cet outil je crois. Pour Photoshop il suffit de sectionner la zone de rentrer le calque de 2 px (pour que çà ne bave pas) et de demander un débruitge. Ces outils valent surtout par leur paramétrage c'est là que je ne peux pas t'aider. Si d’aventure tu veux un jour passer sous photoshops n'hésite pas à me demander. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
J'utilise Linux, je n'ai donc pas le choix du logiciel. J'ai fait un essai. Est-ce mieux maintenant ? Yann (talk) 10:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Oui parfait. Un ciel bien léché fini toujours bien une photo! --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

File:MPP standard.jpg[edit]

Hi. I saw that you deleted the file uploaded by me. I'm sorry, but there must be an error because the file was kindly and legitimately given by the owner of the rights. The file is also featured on the website of the copyright owner, but he has via e-mail accepted the license CC-BY-SA 3.0 for this and other images relating to them. In addition why do you ignored the warning OTRS pending? I put it there on purpose, because I sent the e-mail 2 days ago that attest to the veracity of the license to OTRS system. I require explanations and if possible where is the email that I sent. raul (talk) 01:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't still received the OTRS ticket by e-mail. I'm waiting this permission also for another file. Thanks for patience. raul (talk) 18:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Photo of Hrant Tokhatyan (Director of “SHARM Holding” Company) Undeletion Request[edit]

Hi Yann, I am a web promotor of company Sharm Holding. Hrant Tokhatyan is a Director of SHARM Holding Company. You want delete a file I uploaded called: Hrant Tokhatyan2.jpg (File:Hrant Tokhatyan2.jpg). Please cancel the deletion of this file and restore it, becouse this photo I'am shooting 2 years ago and I have all the rights to use it. This photo was uploaded to wikipedia and placed to his page with a knowledge and consent of Mr. Tokhatyan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newsyman (talk • contribs)

The Administrator's barnstar[edit]

Police Barnstar Hires.png The Administrator's barnstar
I hereby award Yann this barnstar for high activity as Administrator on Commons in 2011. Very good work! -- George Chernilevsky talk 20:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! It is nice to know that the little dirty work I have done is pleasing to someone. ;oP Yann (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Scratch?[edit]

พ.s. 20:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

??? Yann (talk) 20:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
QED. พ.s. 09:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
My position has not changed. Wladyslaw is right. Actually I find your systematic opposition not very productive. This also includes the egg nominations by Archaeodontosaurus. Yann (talk) 10:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Rangers1915.JPG and File:FortBrown1915.jpg[edit]

I've retagged these images as copyvios. Subsequent discussion here, on en.wikipedia revealed the images were published posthumously. The 1923 date is for publication, not creation. The first publish date was post 1968. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Two British logos decision[edit]

Are we sure about the Keep on Commons:Deletion requests/Two British logos (concerning File:EDGE logo.svg and File:Stansted Airport logo.png)? I see three people saying delete, and myself giving comments. There are several deletion discussions awaiting the outcome of the "Two British logos" decision: Special:WhatLinksHere/Commons:Deletion_requests/Two_British_logos. I just want to make sure that it was closed with the correct decision, since it will soon affect a large number of British logos on Commons. --Closeapple (talk) 17:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I follow deletion requests quite closely, and I have always seen that very simple logos like these are considered as {{PD-textlogo}}, {{PD-font}}, or {{PD-ineligible}}. It would be a bad precedent that such simple logos are deleted because of copyright issue. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but those were all U.S. logos (or, at least, non-British logos). Don't works on Commons have to be free "in at least the United States and in the source country of the work"? And Iisn't copyright the basic criterion that determines whether a file is kept on Commons? --Closeapple (talk) 19:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
I also think that this closure was wrong. The British threshold of originality is very different to that of the United States as shown by COM:TOO#UK, COM:SIG#UK and COM:ART#Other countries. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
This closure is simply wrong. Please reverse it; there is no basis for applying US copyright principles to this UK logo. To be clear: {{PD-textlogo}} says "...It does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection..." but the threshold of originality that applies here is the British one, not the US one, and the British one is very low (absurdly low, for people used to the US approach, but there it is). Rd232 (talk) 23:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
OK, I reverted my decision. Yann (talk) 06:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I see from your new DR comment that you draw a parallel with PD-Art, but the PD-Art exception to the respect for copyright law of the source country (+US, where images hosted) came into existence via WMF statement and a sitewide poll. We can't do something similar on an ad hoc basis in DRs. Rd232 (talk) 08:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for the message.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 20:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

You recent closures[edit]

Looks like you have ill understanding of de minimis therefore I started a topic about your closures at the Village pump. Artem Karimov (talk) 12:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: "new" user[edit]

I'm surprised that there's so many of you and you haven't worked out the mystery. I'd think it's pretty obvious. This comment is not specific to you. I'm in a shrugging mood here - the level of participation you want in the project is really up to you. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 09:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Photos de Pompiers[edit]

Bonjour,

J'ai vu ue vous avez mis il y a désormais 10 jours un bandeau demandant une justification des droits des photos postées par Pompiers. Sans réponse depuis 10 jours, il est peut-être désormais temps de les supprimer?

J'ai commencé à les retier des articles concernés. Cramos78 (talk) 10:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Je ne parlais pas de supprimer le bandeau, mais la photo! Puisqu'il n'a apporté aucune réponse. Mais je vais de suite au bistrot. Cramos78 (talk) 11:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

VI candidates[edit]

Hi! Please, could you take a look here & here??? I didn't understand what's the problems with the photos that I've uploaded. Best regards. Angelus (talk) 23:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Semnopithecus[edit]

Tes 4 images de Semnopithecus sont intéressantes mais avec un contre jour. Ce n'est pas grave, car tu peux facilement les rattraper. Sur mon Logiciel il existe une fonction "Tons foncés/ tons clairs" qui corrige en un clic, ne l'as-tu pas sur ton logiciel? (j'ai essayé et sa marche). --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Bonjour, J'ai fait de nouvelles versions en corrigeant le contraste. Merci, Yann (talk) 11:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Hoehlenplanarie-dendrocoelum-cavaticum.jpg[edit]

Dear Yann, thank you very much for your note on my discussion page. Sorry, I didn´t find a category for this flatworm. The name of the category should be: Subject/Animals/Platyhelminthes. Can you help me? Best regards Holger--H. Krisp (talk) 17:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC) Hello Yann, thank you very much for your answer. I asked George Chernilevsky about the problem. Maybe he can help us.Best regards Holger--H. Krisp (talk) 18:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Aufang[edit]

Bonjour,

Je découvre que vous avez supprimé toute une partie (bio + origines) d'un article sur Aufgang que je venais juste de poster. J'avoue ne pas comprendre. Les textes étaient justes. La photo était "officielle" et légale (puisque je fais partie de la boîte qui a travaillé avec le photographe en question).

Je suis étonné et un peu déçu. Pourriez-vous m'expliquer ? Merci

Rémi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infiné R (talk • contribs)

Category:Pages with broken file links[edit]

Hi Yann, you have tagged Category:Pages with broken file links for speedy deletion, but I am unsure what is your actual intention. Do you just want the cat itself be deleted or also all the files in the cat? --Túrelio (talk) 09:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Not the category, obviously, but some of the content. Yann (talk) 09:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
"some of the content" - couldn't be less unclear. Anyway, I found my own talkpage and talkpage archives all in this strange cat. But when looking at the code/content of these pages there was nowhere something like "Category:Pages with broken file links". So this categorization might be the result of another rather common cat or template. Now I found something, look at File:Water sharing-556498.jpg: the current and the 2nd version is in this cat, but the original/1st version is not. And the difference between them is that the newer version carry the broken link to File:Water sharing-556498.tif in the Other_versions-entry. If this mechanism is true for all entries in this cat, then there is rather no (easy) way to remove anything from this cat, except by correcting the broken link(s) in >3000 files. However, I wonder what original purpose this cat had (question asked to Denniss). --Túrelio (talk) 09:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Deletion requests[edit]

Hi Yann! I requested the deletion of these files:

because are only a temporary test of a Graphic Lab. ;-) Please could you delete those files? Thanks.

FC Internazionale Milano[edit]

Hi. I saw that you deleted these (1;2). What's the reason?--Dipralb (talk) 22:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

There were tagged copyvios because of the logos. I see that they have been uploaded again. Well... Yann (talk) 01:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

VI images[edit]

Hi Yann,

I don't think such actions [3] & [4] are permitted. The evaluation procedure was already concluded! Could you intervene? Thanks a lot. Best regards. Angelus (talk) 13:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
OK, reverted. User warned. Yann (talk) 14:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. Angelus (talk) 14:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
I am sorry to bother you, but he has changed again [5] & [6]. Greetings. Angelus(talk) 11:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Reverted. I blocked him for 3 days. Yann (talk) 11:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks. Angelus(talk) 11:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Lastroy[edit]

Hello Yann, could you please check files uploaded by User:Lastroy and their comment on my talk page and explain to them in French that what they should do. Thanks for the help.  ■ MMXX  talk 01:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done Yann (talk) 07:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Children_in_the_Holocaust_concentration_camp_liberated_by_Red_Army.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Children_in_the_Holocaust_concentration_camp_liberated_by_Red_Army.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 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!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

sугсго 08:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Your block of User:Wetenschatje[edit]

Hi Yann,

I perceive you as involved in the dispute with WS regarding his edits on COM:VIC. I do not agree with the pointy nature of WSs edits there. But as an involved editor, I think it is not right that you do the block. I ask you to reconsider the block and take it to AN for review of uninvolved admins. --Slaunger (talk) 20:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi,
Well, I am happy if anyone else do the dirty work. ;) Regarding my involvement: 1. I didn't take part in the discussion on the talk page about galleries. 2. I blocked him because he was edit warring Angelus' nominations, not mine. In that case, I would obviously not block him. 3. I warned him before, and I only blocked him for 3 days. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Nevertheless, I removed the block, and asked others to intervene. Please see Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Wetenschatje. Yann (talk) 20:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Yann, Well you have been involved in the dispute previously and you opened the thread about the subject om COM:VIC. This is not something I want to make a big thing, but I can say that in my opinion you are involved. I was not aware you had warned him before (where?) and isn't three days a long time for a first block for this kind of dispute? Wouldn't one day be more normal? --Slaunger (talk) 20:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Ah, just noticed your section on AN. Thanks. I think that is the right thing to do. Your decision may have been right. Just important that it cannot be perceived as an involved block. --Slaunger (talk) 21:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Record du monde du blocage le plus court ? World record of the shortest block ?... Je doute que quelque admin reprenne le chose et fasse le sale boulot...--Jebulon (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Jebulon, apporte tes arguments sur le bureau des admins. Mieux, pourquoi ne te proposes-tu pas comme admin? ;) Yann (talk) 07:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
aucune critique envers toi. Je ne réclame aucun blocage, j'en ai juste marre de ce névropathe qui se croit tout permis. Je n'ai globalement pas confiance dans les admins. Je ne souhaite pas rejoindre la cohorte de ceux qui ne décident jamais rien, et qui ne font qu'exacerber les tensions (croyant les apaiser) en renvoyant chacun dos à dos.--Jebulon (talk) 09:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


  • Yann was right to block. Slauger was right to comment on the form. I observe only that WS has not given the slightest excuse and that the problem is not resolved. I hope Yann did not discourage. VI is the least hospitable place in COMMONS.
  • I propose two simple rules
The scope can be modified only by the proponent (We can, through discussion, propose such changes)
The gallery is advised but not mandatory.
  • This would allow us to leave, by consensus, of the current episode. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
      • this was not the reason of the block...--Jebulon (talk) 09:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Fine with me. I need more than that to be discouraged. ;o) Yann (talk) 07:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment ne pas être d'accord ? J'indique qu'à titre personnel je suis désormais convaincu de l'utilité des galeries.--Jebulon (talk) 09:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Undeletion request[edit]

File:NITK-Emblem.gif - was being used as a non-free logo in an Infobox space; as mentioned here: en:Wikipedia:Logos#Uploading_non-free_logos Cwarrior (talk) 10:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Fair use images are not allowed on Commons. Please upload them on Wikipedia. Thanks, Yann (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Logo_Belarusian_Republican_Youth_Union_of_the_BRYU.jpg[edit]

In Belarus is the National Union of young people, is one of the symbols of State of the Republic of Belarus. Keep, licensed Template:PD-BY-exempt Abcent18 03:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Please answer in the deletion request, not here. Yann (talk) 06:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Images being deleted[edit]

Hello,

Could you please explain why you deleted three of my images, and why a fourth one was deleted by Túrelio? These are photos taken by me or my colleague, and were very relevant to the articles they were being used in. They came from my own hard drive and are perfectly free to be used.

Many thanks,

Basil Jradeh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basil Jradeh (talk • contribs)

Hello, The images were deleted because they are available on http://www.hmdw-architects.co.uk/
I think it would be better to send a mail to confirm that they are yours. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


Thanks - I've sent an email from my work account to wiki permissions, confirming these images are from the right source - then I'll re-upload them, with more specific filenames also.

Undeletion Request (Restore File:Muharram.jpg )[edit]

Dear Yann, You have deleted the image File:Muharram.jpg due to liscense issue. It is to inform you that this image was photographed by me and i completely own this image.I know that you had informed me, but, as i am new to wikimedia, therefore i could not get the exact point, so Please if you restore the image, i 'll try my best to provide the source and liscence in order to improve it. thanks. --Shahenshahkillz (talk) 12:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

RfCU[edit]

Thank you for your support.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Notification[edit]

I've opened a discussion at COM:AN that relates to you. Trycatch (talk) 11:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg 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.
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!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely Prof. Professorson (talk) 13:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Copyvio[edit]

I see that you have uploaded File:Donald Duck - Derivative of NARA 513868.svg to wikilivres. I am not the proper author of the file as it is a fanzine and my part only include mechanical reprocessing and a few corrections of paths, which does not create a new independent work. Proper copyrightholder of the real underlaying work is as I see it Disney corp. I would also like to point out that you have copied a file I requested deleted, and after it was in fact deleted. I therefore request you to remove me as author of the file you have copied. Thank you for your cooperation. Jeblad (talk) 11:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, done. Yann (talk) 11:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Closure of Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Tasting_a_condom.jpg[edit]

Hi Yann, I noticed in your closure of Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Tasting_a_condom.jpg that you didn't address (or even mention) the potential copyright violation issue that was raised, or the question of whether to apply {{2257}} that I raised in the nomination. Could you please revise your closing rationale? Thank you. Dcoetzee (talk) 16:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, I have no idea about the copyright issue. Yann (talk) 16:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lucinda Rosenfeld.jpg[edit]

I would appreciate a better explanation at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lucinda Rosenfeld.jpg - we're dealing with an unhappy author here, so there should be some attempt to sum up made. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, done. Yann (talk) 17:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Your deletion[edit]

I noticed you deleted File:Minecraft 1.1 Title.png for being a screenshot of 'non-free software', but on the Minecraft website here it says you're free to do whatever you want with Minecraft screenshots. おやすみ (talk) 10:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure if this is sufficient, but I restored this image, and created a deletion request: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Minecraft 1.1 Title.png. Yann (talk) 10:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

43,000+[edit]

Your userpage says you have 43,000+ contributions, but you have close to 53,000 now. Time to update the userbox? --Sreejith K (talk) 13:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, done. Actually the edit counter does not work for me. Yann (talk) 14:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
The edit counter is down, but you can see your edit count here --Sreejith K (talk) 17:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Yellow BMW S1000RR on race track.jpg[edit]

Do you have any information on why this file was deleted? It should have already passed flickr review a long time ago. Was the license changed on Flickr?

6 February 2012 (Deletion log); 11:49 . . Yann (talk | contribs)‎ deleted "File:Yellow BMW S1000RR on race track.jpg" (Copyright violation)

--Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

There is a copy here: http://viatape2roti.blogspot.in/2010/11/motocicleta-saptamanii-ii_24.html OK, I don't know where is the real source, so I restored and create a deletion request. Yann (talk) 17:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
The REAL source was listed on the photo's SOURCE field. Where else? It links to a Flickr image that is licensed attribution only, and dated a year before the blog post. That http://viatape2roti.blogspot.in site is just some pirate who steals images from all over the web; they're not the copyright owner. Can you restore it please? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Can you restore the other one too? All you had to do was click on the source link to see where it came from. It's pretty annoying, because the sport bike article on Wikipedia had a dead link for a lead image for a week, and I wasn't even notified of the deletion. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
OK done, but I am not so sure about this one: the copy is on a magazine website, not a blog, and it has a (c) mark. And the copy on Flickr is cropped precisely where is this mark. Yann (talk) 18:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I think the magazine changes things -- those photos are unretouched and the ones on flickr are photoshopped. So I no longer trust the uploader on flicker and I think it's safer to delete. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

FP nomination[edit]

Hey, You recommended once one of my panorama for nomination to featured picture (thanks, you were right!). I consider nominating File:Waldermarsudde Panorama February 2012.jpg for FP. I think the technical quality is higher than the Drottningholm picture, but the composition may not be as appealing. Do you think there is any point in trying? Regards, --ArildV (talk) 17:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The resolution is quite high, and I can find any issue, so it might be OK. Check for stiching errors before. The standard is very high nowadays. Yann (talk) 18:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

File:European flag in the wind.jpg[edit]

Hi, you deleted this image on 31 Jan, but I haven't been able to find a discussion. Can you tell me why it was deleted? As far as I can tell it was tagged with cc-by-sa3. Joey Roe (talk) 19:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

It came from the website of Ryder Cup. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Benoy_Viswam[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Benoy_Viswam 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 | Polski | Português | Русский | +/−

Kiran Gopi (talk) 03:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:User SUL-de[edit]

Hallo Yann, please keep my Template, but please do it, I'm waiting now from Janury 9. (see also User talk:Jameslwoodward#Template:User SUL-de). Lovely --Abrape (talk) 17:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Hallo Yann, User Jim has done kept my Template. Thank you too. Lovely --Abrape (talk) 23:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Some Image concerns[edit]

Hi Yann, these images look fishy: In all probability, they are modified from an image downloaded from the net somewhere (note the non standard image dimensions). I didn't get any hits on w:en:Tineye, but can you have a look, just in case? The images in question are:

Thanks! MikeLynch (talk) 01:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I obviously didn't get any hits on Tineye because of the watermarking. How stupid of me. I'll mark some of them for deletion. MikeLynch (talk) 12:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Wrong file name[edit]

Dear Yann, when uploading the image of a Dutch athlete, I made a mistake in defining the file name. See 'File:111127-063 Anne van den Hurk-van Es.jpg'. Would you please be so kind to correct this, as explained on her discussion page? Thanks in advance! Regards, Piet.Wijker (talk) 14:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Gadgets[edit]

Please Yann, could you tell me more about that? -- Blackcat (talk) 17:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Go to Your Preferences, select the Gadgets tab, in Maintenance tools, select "GoogleImages tab". Yann (talk) 17:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Merci, si utile. Est-ce qu'il y a une façon de le visualiser en le menu à gauche plutot que dans les tabs là-haute? -- Blackcat (talk) 20:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Not that I know. Yann (talk) 03:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Ok, merci. -- Blackcat (talk) 08:45, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Krishna on a village temple wall, Umaria district, India.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Krishna on a village temple wall, Umaria district, India.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 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!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Lovy Singhal (talk) 11:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

FP nomination for the Mantra-Rock Dance poster[edit]

Hello Yann. Thanks for your participation on the FP nomination for the Mantra-Rock Dance poster. I've added a detailed rationale to the nomination page and, personal preferences aside, please see if this gives you enough reasons to take another look at the candidate. Regards, Cinosaur (talk)

It is a political term not a "racial slur"[edit]

Just to explain, as I wasn't aware of this discussion before. As you may not be aware of the political term used, I guess I have to explain.

In Afghanistan there are four major ethnic groups: Pashtuns (40 %) and Tajiks, Hazara and Uzbek (60 %). There exists an Afghan-Pashtun nationalist party called Afghan Mellat including several high ranking members of the Karzai administration which thinks Pashtuns are the "natural rulers" of Afghanistan and should dominate the other ethnic groups. These Pashtun nationalists are being called Pashtunists - not because of their ethnicity but because of their political stance. As Officer was writing on his user talk the following: "At first there were too many ethnic Tajiks from the north in government positions and that was corrected later. Now the Afghan security forces have too many Tajik and other minority groups. The Taliban (Pashtuns) calling for a deal with USA will allow this problem to be fixed." -> I identified him as a follower of that ideology - so it wasn't used or meant as a racial slur but as a description of his very likely political ideology.

This is further being backed up as he seems to be on a mission - not only getting Tajiks and Hazaras removed from the government and security forces - but also getting images of Afghan Tajiks and Hazaras removed from wikicommons - you can see how many of these images he has nominated for deletion. Now he has nominated a picture of w:Amrullah Saleh, an anti-Taliban Afghan Tajik, although all information have been reliably provided. He also seems to be on a crusade against these images (every single one of them of a Tajik and/or Hazara) although in each of these cases the community has already decided to keep them just a couple of days ago. JCAla (talk) 08:52, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Copright violation[edit]

Hi! can you delete this image?, is a copyright violation. Thanks. --Flag of Santiago de Cali.svg Remux - I will never forget that i fell in love with the more beautiful flower Ĉu mi povas helpi vin je io? 03:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Photo workshop thanks[edit]

Thanks for sorting out the images at Commons:Graphic_Lab/Photography_workshop#Mixed_bag_of_things_to_do ... much appreciated. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Template:Potd/2012-04-03[edit]

Hi Yann. I replaced this potd since it wasn't a FP. The various translations (except of English) are incorrect now. Can you delete these translation pages? Tomer T (talk) 09:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you? Tomer T (talk) 15:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

DR Genil[edit]

Hi. You closed thi DR, but still remains one picture. Thanks. --Andrea (talk) 12:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Cuddles.jpg[edit]

You deleted File:Cuddles.jpg because Cuddles is a copyrighted character from Happy Tree Friends. Thank you. ItsMeBrandonSky (talk) 17:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)