User talk:Asclepias

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

A cup of tea for you![edit]

Meissen-teacup pinkrose01.jpg I hope you come back soon. I'm always sad to see good long-time editors leave. I've seen it happen way too many times. I know how things here and on Wikipedia can get really irritating at times. You should see some of the fights I've been in! Face-wink.svg Take care. INeverCry 03:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Carte des seigneuries du Québec[edit]

Bonjour Asclepias, Je m'aperçois que la carte de Courchêne 1923 à été dessinée en 1984 par Isabelle Diaz pour le département de géographie de l'Université Laval. Savez-vous si ce travail est libre de droits ? --YanikB (talk) 12:45, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

@YanikB: Bonjour, Je n'ai rien trouvé sur le site de l'université qui indiquerait que ce travail soit libre ni à quel endroit sur ce site ou ailleurs vous avez pu voir que le titulaire des droits d'auteur aurait offert la licence CC que vous avez placée dans les pages de Commons pour cette carte. C'est pourquoi j'ai ajouté le modèle de demande de preuve de cette licence dans la page de la version png. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Je croyais que puisque la carte avait plus de 70 ans elle était libre de droits. Si ce n'est pas le cas j'exigerai sa suppression. --YanikB (talk) 21:47, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Wall Painting Musee de la place Royale.jpg[edit] Why do you want to delete this photo I took in Quebec?Dslcards (talk) 17:36, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

First, thank you for uploading to Commons your very good photos. However, Commons cannot host photos of non-free paintings, unless with explicit permission of the painters or owners of the copyright. Please see the page Commons:Derivative works for the detailed guideline and the deletion nomination page Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wall Painting Musee de la place Royale.jpg for the specific information about this painting. You are of course welcome to add comments on that nomination page. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:01, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
This is fine with me, as I said I don't want to infringe on a copyrighted material. By the way, I guess I can't delete any of my photos that I upload. This is good to know, and I thank you for letting me practice talking to another user. I have never done that and sometimes even the help section needs a help section to understand all of this. I primarily upload images because I use images on wikitree profiles. Thanks and have a good day and please delete that image i took in Quebec!Dslcards (talk) 18:10, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Sanity check[edit]

Hello! I have a quick favor to ask. I noticed the w:en:Category:User-created public domain files backlog has become quite large, so I started moving files that looked like low-hanging fruit using For the Common Good. I'm a total rookie at Commons. If you have a moment, could you do me a huge favor and take a look through some of the files I've moved and make sure I'm not doing something foolhardy? I don't want to create a bunch of work for the folks here. Thanks a million! Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 23:38, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Best Wishes![edit]

Décoration de Noël, place du Molard, Genève 2016.jpg
Best Wishes, Asclepias!
Hi Asclepias, I wish you all the best for the Holidays and a Happy New Year 2017. Face-smile.svg Yann (talk) 18:57, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Christmas decoration, place du Molard, Geneva.jpg

Happy New Year, Asclepias![edit]

Message at w:[edit]

I left you a message at w:User talk:Asclepias#Images of branded sustenance. I noticed that you've recently been more active on commons, so just dropping a note here as well (though it's probably redundant due to cross-wiki notification). Best Regards, Godsy (talkcontribs) 16:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)


File:Peterjulian.PNG 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 | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | norsk bokmål | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/− 21:06, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Suggestions for better additions in Commons?[edit]

Hi Asclepias! I am new to Wikipedia/Commons, and have been adding images from where I work (Library and Archives Canada) into Commons, and then adding them to relevant articles (English and French) as part of a pilot project. If I'm not mistaken, you are also Canadian? ;) I am very grateful for all the corrections you have taken the time to make to the uploaded images I have done. The question I have for you is, I am using Upload Wizard, and I think I may be missing some of the technical best practices / standards regarding image metadata, such as circa, not ca. for dates, use of [[, etc. as well as category selections. Sorry to burden you with this ;) but do you have any references / quick fixes that you would suggest to a new user like me? I'm an archivist by training, and so I completely understand about the importance of standards in metadata creation and want to make sure I get this right :) Thanks!! :) --Ottawaorrell (talk) 14:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello Ottawaorrell! I try to keep an eye on recent uploads about Canada and indeed I noticed your interesting additions of images from LAC. Your knowledge of templates and other details will expand with experience. Many templates are optional. You will see that the description pages often get modified by users or by robots. Seeing that many of your uploads are reproductions of artworks, a few suggestions and comments for now could be the following.
  • Template:Artwork is recommended for images of reproductions of two-dimensional artworks (instead of Template:Information). Information is ok, but Artwork is more appropriate for artworks. Do not be impressed by the apparent complexity of this template. Most of its fields are optional, although it's good to fill the fields that can be filled with the available information about the original artwork and about the particular reproduction. The documentation page of the template provides detailed instructions. It also provides examples of some templates that can be used to format information about creators, institutions, size, etc.
  • When used alone in the date field, dates can be noted in the form 2017-02-16, and that will be automatically displayed by the system according to the reader's language preferences. There are other ways to format dates with templates such as circa, before, etc.
  • When available, specific categories are used by preference to broad categories. After a time, you will get used to the categories more closely related to your topics of interest. There can be some subjectivity to choosing the best categories for a file, but for artworks in general categories can be related to themes, location, time, author, type of work, etc.
  • It may be useful to perform searches with some keywords or look in some categories, to see if the image is already on Commons. If the image already exists on Commons, you can decide if the new upload will be useful, depending if and how the copies differ. It is good to upload an additional copy of a work, if it differs from the existing copy (or copies) by a larger size, a better quality, a more free license, etc. When uploading a new copy of an image, it is good practice to link to the other copy (or copies) of the same image in the "other versions" field. (Although the files will likely also be in the same thematic categories, linking them directly helps find and compare them more easily.)
  • The status ("licensing") section should provide information about the status of the original work. Commons requires information about the status in the United States and about the status in the country of origin. For artworks first published in Canada before 1923, that can often be expressed with the templates PD-1923 and PD-Canada. There are other templates for different cases. It can get a bit more complicated when the photographer of a reproduction claims a copyright on that particular reproduction and offers a license for it. Depending on cases, variants of Template:PD-Art, such as Template:Licensed-PD-Art-two, can help. If you test the templates and parameters with the "show preview" button, you should get used to them. This is a complex area, do not hesitate to ask help on the Help Desk or on the Commons Village Pump, etc.
  • I can't help with the Upload Wizard tool, because I do not use it. It is made for frequent types of uploads. It doesn't offer all possible options. You can use the upload form you like best. I use the basic upload form because it can be formatted freely, but that's a personal preference. Another available form is Special:Upload. Whichever upload form you use, you can always modify the description pages after upload.
I hope that helps and keep on the good work! -- Asclepias (talk) 18:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you so much!! Your helpful hints are being printed off as we speak so that I can use them as I go :)I am going to start by trying the upload form you suggested. :) Thanks again! --Ottawaorrell (talk) 18:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Uploading modified images[edit]

Dear Asclepias,

A few weeks ago, you kindly gave me some advice here on how to upload an image which I have created by modifying another image. I tried this today, using the basic form as you recommended. I filled in the main input field as

|Description=Map as at but with the borders only
|Date=Original created 2009-09-08; modifications made 2017-02-19
|Author=original, Alexander-Michael Hadjilyra; modifications, Maproom
|Permission=Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported

and ignored the "Licensing" field as it did not offer the correct option, "Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported". When I clicked "Submit", I got the warning "You must give the original source of the file, the author of the work, and a license." What am I doing wrong? Maproom (talk) 20:39, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Maproom,
As far as I can tell, the only thing that is missing in your example above is a template of a standardized license tag. Because on Commons a license must always be expressed by inserting a template recognized by the system. Your upload should work fine if you add a template. In your example above, the template for that license is the template {{Cc-by-3.0}}. You may place it in the "permission" field or you may place it separately between the information template and the categories. It is not necessary to write in words the name of the license, because the template displays it. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
That worked! I'm now hoping it will survive. Many thanks for your help. Maproom (talk) 21:21, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Examples due to help desk question[edit]

Salut Asclepias. To get precise i will give you these examples of pictures i included into wikipedia articles. One picture was shot on a street in Brazil (this one in Sao Paolo and shows some people. I included it some time ago on the German wikipedia article of Brazil, in the section of Population, subsection ethnics. (see

I am also wondering if the picture itself is even legal, cause on commons they say that actualy you would need any permission to take any photo of any person in the country of Brazil? (see

Another picture i would take as an example is in the German article of the London eye. It shows some passangers in the capsule and the picture got the particular template. (see

Could you comment on these images, and these type of using in wikipedia? Merci.--Joobo (talk) 17:36, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Evelyne Audet.jpg[edit]

Salut Asclepias.

Pourquoi as-tu décidé d'ouvrir un débat de suppression pour ce fichier ? Le modèle {{No permission}} que j'avais apposé n'était pas approprié ? (c'est juste pour savoir pour les prochaines fois :))

Merci de ta réponse --Titlutin (talk) 18:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Bonjour, En effet, lorsque l'utilisateur dit être lui-même l'auteur et déclare accorder lui-même une licence, le bandeau No permission ne convient pas vraiment car, en principe, les cas d'utilisation de ce bandeau sont plutôt ceux où, comme le dit ce bandeau, "La source et l'auteur sont bien indiqués, mais il n'existe aucune preuve que l'auteur a bien donné son accord pour placer son image sous la licence en question." Typiquement, des cas où l'utilisateur indique quelqu'un d'autre comme véritable auteur et dit que ce véritable auteur a offert la licence. Par contre, lorsqu'il s'agit plutôt d'un cas, comme File:Evelyne Audet.jpg, où l'utilisateur dit être lui-même l'auteur et déclare accorder lui-même une licence, c'est plutôt un cas où on doute de l'affirmation de l'utilisateur d'être l'auteur. Donc, ce qui convient est soit le bandeau Copyvio, lorsque le cas est évident, soit une demande de suppression normale. J'aurais probablement utilisé Copyvio si j'avais trouvé une source avec un exemplaire aussi grand et des détails au sujet du statut de la photo. J'ai choisi la demande de suppression ordinaire, ce qui laisse la possibilité à l'utilisateur de s'expliquer. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
D'accord. Merci beaucoup pour ces précisions. Cordialement --Titlutin (talk) 23:41, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you![edit]

Gaufre biscuit.jpg Thanks very much for your advice regarding my issue with the Flickr photo tag. I appreicate it! Enjoy the stroopwafels!! Ian.fraser1 (talk) 18:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)


File:Yousuf-Karsh.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 | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | norsk bokmål | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

And also:

Yours sincerely,   — Jeff G. ツ 23:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello Asclepias,

I would like to invite you to the Commons Categorizer Meetup 2017 in Montréal in August (the exact date is not fixed yet and will be determined by the Wikimania programme committee). If you want, you can add your name to the list of interested users and propose discussion topics.


--MB-one (talk) 09:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Team Barnstar Hires.png The Teamwork Barnstar
Thanks for help in the categorization of images from Québec The Photographer 17:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


Sorry, must've been a mistake. You can go ahead and change it back. --Mr.Election (talk) 17:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Dr Seuss[edit]

Thank you for your help and new undeletion request! Can I support your request or do I need to be an admin for that? Sincerely thank you. H0n0r (talk) 20:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

@H0n0r: Any user can support or oppose or comment undeletion requests, as long as they explain their reasons. It's not an accumulation of votes. Since your request was accepted, I expect that the new request will be easily accepted. It's essentially just completing the first request. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:33, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Ah, okay. Thank you again. H0n0r (talk) 13:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you![edit]

Gaufre biscuit.jpg Thank you for your help navigating the process. It wouldn't have happened without you :-) Stroopwafels are so good! H0n0r (talk) 14:03, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

André Forget[edit]

Hi, who is André Forget? You added that person as the Author of a few images I transferred from Andrew Scheer's Flickr account. I'm unable to verify that this person is the author. @sikander (talk) 15:26, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

@Siqbal: Hi, Please look at the EXIF for each of those photos. This photographer is mentioned there as the author. André Forget is a professional photographer from the Ottawa area. His website is He also mentions his professional phone number in the "copyright holder" field of the EXIF of those photos, which I suppose is his way to assert his copyright on them. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:40, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
@Asclepias: Got it! Thanks. It would be great if the Flickr2Commons tool reads the EXIF data and populates the Author info from there. I'll go through Scheer's photos and update accordingly. Thanks for pointing this out. @sikander (talk) 15:51, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Te joindre[edit]

Bonjour @Asclepias:, je suis Antoine Beaubien, membre du la section locale Wikimédia Canada. Nous sommes à la recherche de gens avec de l’expertise dans Wiki Commons. Serait-il possible que tu me joignes par courriel à ?

Cordialement, Antoine, --Antoine2711 (talk) 18:22, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Bonjour @Antoine2711:, Je ne suis pas intéressé à collaborer à Wikimedia Canada sur une base régulière. Je peux collaborer occasionnellement sur des cas particuliers. Le cas échéant, en présumant que ce n'est pas confidentiel, on peut en discuter ici sur cette page ou sur toute autre page appropriée de Wikimedia. Cordialement, -- Asclepias (talk) 19:38, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Salut @Asclepias:, effectivement, je ne parle pas de travailler sur une base régulière, mais je cherche plutôt à monter un réseau de personne avec de l’expertise dans les différents projets Wikimédia. Je ne pense pas que ce soit "confidentiel" ce que j’ai à te dire, mais, en même temps, ça me semble pas intéressant de mettre ça en public. Genre, je me demandais dans quelle ville tu habites, et est-ce que tu connais Benoît Rochon, es-tu venue à Wikimania 2017 cet été, et ce genre de questions. Si tu veux répondre ici, libre à toi. Comprends-moi bien, je cherche en entrer en contact avec des gens de la communauté Wiki au Québec et, aussi, au Canada, pas développer des relations sur une base personnelle, bien qu’à force de travailler ensemble, on vient à se respecter et des fois, devenir amis. Mais c’est pas mon objectif, c’est très professionnel mon besoin/ma motivation. Entre autres, on fait beaucoup de collaboration avec la BAnQ à Montréal et avec leur service d’archives, car ils ont une grande quantité de photos nouvellement numérisées et Commons est un outil fameux et peu couteux pour eux pour les diffusées. Enfin, l’objectif de Wikimédia CA est de populariser l’utilisation des outils Wiki, et tu me sembles assez compétente, d’un premier coup d’œil. Je spécule que tu es une femme, si je me trompe, excuses-moi d’avance. Cordialement, --Antoine2711 (talk) 04:52, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
@Antoine2711: Réponses rapides aux questions. Ce n'est effectivement pas secret. Quelques habitués de Wikimedia les connaissent. J'habite Québec. Je sais qui est B. Rochon pour l'avoir croisé deux fois à des événements. J'étais à une seule journée de Wikimania 2017 car je ne pouvais pas y être d'autres jours. Je sais ce qu'est Wikimedia Canada, mais je ne souhaite pas y participer. Je ne suis pas une femme, désolé. Mais ça n'a pas d'importance. Finalement, comme j'ai dit, je peux contribuer à l'occasion si ça adonne, mais rien de régulier. Pour les projets Wikimedia, je fonctionne surtout en solo, par choix. De plus, je dois me déplacer souvent entre deux villes et je ne peux pas planifier tellement d'avance. -- Asclepias (talk) 06:20, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Anny Duperey 1971 A.jpg[edit]

File:Anny Duperey 1971 A.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 | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | norsk bokmål | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Patrick Rogel (talk) 13:49, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[edit]

Hello If possible, look at it: [1] --►Cekli829 12:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


Use of this photo is not a violation of copyright. This photo is fully in the public domain, and made fully available via the Library and Archives of Canada. Please see the following link which clearly indicates "Conditions of access" as "Open":

Please undelete.

Thank you.

User:Dylan-Spanish (talk) 21:12, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Please see the replies in the discussion you initiated at Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:Huguette-Plamondon-ufcw.jpg. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


this photo is open source, provided via the ufcw media kit and intended for wide distribution and use. Featuring this photo on Joseph T. Hansen's wikipedia page in complete keeping with its intended use. Please undelete. Thank you User:Dylan-Spanish (talk) 21:12, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Please see the replies in the discussion you initiated at Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:Joe-hansen-ufcw.jpg. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:46, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Food[edit]

Curd Rice

Hello! After the successful pilot program by Wikimedia India in 2015, Wiki Loves Food (WLF) is happening again in 2018 and this year, we are going International. To make this event a grand success, your direction is key. Please sign up as a volunteer or sign up on behalf of your affiliate here.--Abhinav619 (talk) 05:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jean-Louis Forain Can-Can Dancers.jpg[edit]

Bonjour, La représentante officielle de Jean-Louis Forain dit que ce n'est pas lui l'artiste : Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jean-Louis Forain Can-Can Dancers.jpg. La source mentionnée est maintenant un lien mort. Qu'en penses-tu ? Cordialement, Yann (talk) 15:16, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

@Yann: Bonjour, Comme je l'exprimais dans la discussion de suppression, la demande n'était à ce moment accompagnée d'aucune référence ou explication et il était suggéré au proposeur d'en fournir. Donc, ça dépend d'où provient la communication OTRS et de ce qu'elle dit. En tant qu'utilisateur ordinaire, je n'ai pas accès direct à la correspondance OTRS et je ne peux donc pas en juger. Le titre de «représentante officielle de Jean-Louis Forain» semble étrange puisqu'il est question d'un artiste mort en 1931 et dont les oeuvres sont dans le domaine public. Mais peut-être s'agit-il de la représentante des actuels héritiers des droits moraux. En tenant compte du prénom Alice, duquel l'utilisatrice a signé ce message sur Commons, et d'informations glanées sur internet, je pourrais hasarder l'hypothèse que la communication OTRS pourrait provenir de Florence Valdès-Forain, arrière-petite-fille de Jean-Louis Forain. Alice Valdès-Forain est une génération plus jeune. Ces deux personnes sont expertes de l'oeuvre de Jean-Louis Forain. Si la communication provient de l'une d'elles, alors cela constitue une affirmation experte comme nous l'avions souhaité et cela me semble faire autorité sur la conclusion que cette oeuvre n'est pas de Jean-Louis Forain. Il serait d'ailleurs intéressant d'avoir plus de détails : S'agit-il d'un faux qui était déjà bien connu d'elles ? En connaissent-elles l'origine ? S'agit-il plutôt d'une oeuvre d'un peintre qui portait un nom semblable ? Quant à décider quoi faire avec le fichier sur Commons, il me semble difficile de le conserver en l'absence d'information sur l'origine de l'oeuvre. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:06, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Je voudrais te répondre par mail, mais je ne peux pas. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 19:28, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Bordeaux exposition 1895 - pavillon d'électricité après l'incéndie.jpg[edit]

Bonjour Asclepias, Merci pour la correction des sources de ce fichier. Je l'ai téléversé par erreur avec un lot de photos de l'exposition de Bordeaux en 1895. Je viens de trouver un fichier pdf du livre "Histoire des Expositions de Bordeaux" de Charles Bénard et je corrigerai les sources de quelques unes de ces photos dans les jours qui viennent. Cordialement William Ellison (talk) 05:00, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Photos identiques[edit]

Que faire quand deux photos sont identiques Regardez Category:3rd-century statues in Portugal. --Io Herodotus (talk) 06:51, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Bonjour, 1. S'assurer qu'elles sont bien parfaitement identiques. 2. Si la page de description du fichier à supprimer contient des informations pertinentes qui ne se trouvent pas sur la page de description du fichier à conserver, les copier. 3. Insérer le modèle Duplicate sur le doublon et inscrire en paramètre le nom du fichier à conserver. En général, le fichier à supprimer est celui versé le plus récemment et le fichier à conserver est celui qui a plus d'antériorité. Dans ce cas-ci, le doublon à supprimer serait File:Figura masculina (16730831160).jpg puisque l'autre fichier avait été versé sur Commons antérieurement par l'auteur lui-même. -- Asclepias (talk) 12:32, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Merci. L'ordinateur s'en était aperçu, il y avait la mention doublon. J'ai conservé la deuxième qui a un nom plus adéquate, mais tu as annulé ma demande ! --Io Herodotus (talk) 14:52, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Oui, je suis peut-être trop sensible, mais quand l'auteur lui-même, en l'occurrence le professeur Felicísimo, s'est donné la peine de verser sa propre photographie sur Commons, je trouve brutal de demander la suppression de sa photo pour lui substituer une copie indirecte versée tardivement par quelqu'un d'autre. En tout cas, je le prendrais un peu mal si quelqu'un le faisait à mes propres photos, donc je ne le ferais pas pour les photos des autres auteurs. À mon avis, si quelqu'un tient à supprimer le fichier original du professeur Felicísimo, je pense que la politesse serait de le contacter sur sa page de discussion et de lui demander s'il est d'accord pour faire remplacer son fichier original par la copie. En fait, dans le cas présent, à mon avis, la solution idéale serait de lui demander s'il veut bien modifier la version de la licence de son fichier original pour l'harmoniser avec la licence disponible sur flickr (passer de 4.0 à 2.0) et s'il accepte qu'on renomme le fichier avec un meilleur nom. Je sais, c'est un peu plus complexe que de supprimer purement et simplement son fichier, mais ça permet d'arriver à un résultat final satisfaisant en conservant le fichier et la paternité du versement d'origine par l'auteur. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:31, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
La demande a été faite au professeur sur sa pdd et son email, je n'ai pas de réponse. Sur le fichier ancien une suppression rapide est en cours. J'ai fait ce que j'ai pu. Bonne journée. --Io Herodotus (talk) 03:17, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vincenzo Guzzo profile photo.jpg[edit]

Bonjour Asclepias. Thank you for reviewing this file. I asked Vincenzo Guzzo for a photo that could be released under Creative Commons. He emailed permission to use this photo to on 2018-11-01. They asked him to upload the photo, so I did so and asked him to close the loop by letting them know it has been uploaded. I did question whether he holds copyright on this photo, and since he hired the photographer to take this portrait for him, he believes he holds the copyright. I welcome your thoughts.

I am also creating a new page for Vincenzo Guzzo since he does not yet have a page. Once I have built a draft, I am wondering if you would be willing to review it before I submit for release? Thank you kindly. Connie L Crosby (talk) 15:16, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Connie L Crosby: Hi, The belief of Vincenzo Guzzo on this point is probably wrong. If the photographer had ceded her copyright to him, that would be written very clearly in a clause of their contract, and she would not have placed her copyright notice on the photo. Depending on the exact terms written in their contract for photographic services, it probably provides a right for V. Guzzo to use the photos for his personal and professional activities, but that does not transfer the copyright, and it probably does not allow the client to grant licenses for free use of the photo by the general public. For the photo to be validly placed under a free license on Commons, Wikimedia would need a direct statement from the photographer, either telling that she herself agrees to grant the free license, or telling that the rights she has already contractually granted to V. Guzzo include the right for him to grant the free license. You can contact the photographer and ask her if she would agree to grant the free license. The answer will probably be "no", but you can ask. I already took the initiative of leaving a message to the photographer on her Twitter account, including a link to the page Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vincenzo Guzzo profile photo.jpg, in case she wants to comment there. She has not replied yet. About the article on Wikipedia, I usually do not review Wikipedia articles, but you can probably find someone on Wikipedia who will review it. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:38, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. A staff member who works with Vincenzo Guzzo has also contacted the photographer, and she confirms having transferred copyright to him. I have asked that the photographer send a note to Wikimedia to that effect. Thank you for your help. Connie L Crosby (talk) 17:51, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Good catch![edit]

Didn't realize photo was cropped from source. Corrected information on File:Marie Valérie, archiduchesse d'Autriche.jpg. {{PD-Austria-1932}} definitely badly needed some curation. Abzeronow (talk) 02:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Mewata Stadium - 1962.jpg[edit]

Bonjour, j'ai récemment téléversé File:Mewata Stadium - 1962.jpg qui a été produit par la ville de Calgary en 1962, mais je suis pas tout à fait certain à 100% que le droit d'auteur de la Couronne s'applique pour cette photo. J'aimerais que tu me donne ton avis. En passant, Bonne et heureuse année 2019. --Fralambert (talk) 01:37, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

@Fralambert: Bonjour, Désolé, je ne le sais pas non plus et je ne voudrais pas te donner une mauvaise réponse. Je dirais seulement que quel que soit le type de droit d'auteur, il pourrait y a voir un problème. Pour une photo qui serait sous droit d'auteur de la Couronne, il faudrait connaître l'année de la publication, puisque la durée du droit d'auteur de la Couronne se calcule depuis l'année de publication. Or, l'année de publication n'est pas mentionnée. Par contre, pour une photo créée par un employé pour son employeur, l'employeur est titulaire du droit d'auteur jusqu'à 50 ans après la mort de cet employé, ce qui implique de connaître l'identité de l'employé. Or l'identité du photographe n'est pas mentionnée. Si l'identité du photographe est inconnue, le droit d'auteur dure jusqu'à la durée la plus courte entre 50 ans après la publication ou 75 ans après la création. Ici on bute encore sur l'absence d'information sur l'année de publication de cette photo pour savoir s'il y a eu 50 ans depuis sa publication. Et si on calculait selon 75 ans après l'année de création, 1962, la photo ne serait pas encore libre. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:38, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Ok, je vois que j'ai demandé à la bonne personne, bien que ça m'embête un peu plus. Je serais tenté de la conserver pour l'instant. Malgré que si tu demandes la suppression, je ne t'en voudrais pas. --Fralambert (talk) 20:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

License reviewer ?[edit]

Hello Asclepias, serais-tu intéressé à être license reviewer ? Si oui, je veux bien proposer ta candidature. Cordialement, — Racconish💬 05:22, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@Racconish: Bonjour, Ce n'est pas quelque chose qui m'intéresse en ce moment, mais merci quand même de l'offre, j'y repenserai peut-être. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:27, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

COM:VPC#Category:Coins of Canada[edit]

Hi Asclepias. Since you've worked on this category and also have some knowledge of COM:CUR Canada, perhaps you can help sort out COM:VPC#Category:Coins of Canada. It seems that many of the files uploaded to that category would be COM:DWs where the not only the copyright of the photo, but also the coin needs to be taken into account. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:50, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Marchjuly: Indeed, this category currently contains many files that should not be on Commons. Categories of coins of all countries have a tendency to attract and to accumulate many such uploads. It's a recurring problem. Those categories would require regular cleanups. Some users volunteer to do some cleanup occasionally in some of the categories. Nothing systematic. It's a rather tedious job. Which may explain why not many users do it and not frequently. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:26, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't mind helping with the clean up (at least with this particular category). I'm assuming that any coins issued after December 31, 1945 are going to be considered derivtive works regardless of the licensing on the actual photo. As far as I can tell, there are at least ten files where the dates on the coins indicate they were issued after the 1945 brightline date, which I'm assuming to mean that Commons shouldn't be hosting the files. Should these be DR or can they be tagged with Template:Dw no source since per COM:CSD#F3 instead? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:05, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: Thanks, a cleanup can certainly be useful in the category. The text at the top of Category:Coins of Canada can help. Please keep in mind that the important year is not necessarily the year marked on a coin but the first year the design was originally used. The reverse side of a coin marked with a recent year, such as 2019, can still have the same design first used in 1937 and thus that side of the 2019 coin is acceptable on Commons and should not be nominated for deletion. That was the case for example of the boat design on the 10 cents coin we discussed recently on Wikipedia, where the problem was the photo, not the 1937 design even if the coin was marked with a more recent year. But this is probably the case only for the reverse sides of the regular coins of 1 (leaf), 5 (beaver), 10 (boat) and 25 (caribou) cents. The designs of the head of the queen on the obverse sides were changed a few times. We would have to check the first years for those designs. So, some files showing the queen side or both sides of a coin may have a different status than files showing only the reverse side. This section of the RCM website can help: [2]. Of course, the situation is more simple for the reverse sides of special commemorative coins, where the year marked on the coin is generally the year to consider.
The template Dw no source would probably not be a good choice if the reason is the design, because even if the uploader did not specify it in the description page, actually we know that the source is a coin, and that the source of the coin is the Royal Canadian Mint. You can use the copyvio template if you're sure it's a copyvio. Or just an ordinary deletion request.
Another thing to keep in mind is the whole unsolved controversy on Commons about the US restored copyrights, since a few years ago when the authorities of the Wikimedia Foundation asked Commons to stop deleting files that are free in their country of origin but have a restored copyright in the US. Some Commons administrators follow this directive, others do not. Because of this absence of consensus, since then, I generally do not nominate for deletion anymore Canadian works that are PD in Canada even if they may not be PD in the US. In other words, I do not nominate a file if the only reason is a possible restored US copyright. Instead, I mark them with the "Template:Not-PD-US-URAA". It means that I would probably choose to not nominate a Canadian coin image whose design was first used before 1969. Other users may choose to still nominate such files. So, it's your choice. -- Asclepias (talk) 03:28, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
(Edit conflict)It completely slipped my mind that the design on the coin may actually pre-date the date actually shown on the coin in the photo even though it's quite an obvious thing and makes perfect sense. In that case, it's quite possible that the ten files I referred to above are actually OK. I'm glad I waited a bit before starting to try and clean up the category. Let me ask about some specific examples
  1. File:1972 Canada 1 cent (5195373568).jpg: The date on the coin is 1972, and according to the RCM website the original 1937 design of the coin was tweaked multiple times, but there was a more significant change made in 1967. Since the version shown in the photo appears to be just a tweaked version of the original design (not the 1967 design with the dove), I assuming this one is OK since the design would be PD. The question then is whether it's necessary to a copyright license for the coin imagery to file's page in addition to the one added for the photo.
  2. File:2006 Canada 25 cents (5203940648).jpg: This is pretty much that same as the 1 cent coin. The date on the coin is 2006, but the original design dates back to 1937 according to the RCM website; so, like the 1 cent coin, the design is most likely PD and the file can be kept. (again not sure if a copyright license is needed for the coin itself in addition to the one provided for the photo).
  3. File:1988 Canada one dollar (5158672877).jpg: The date on this coin is 1988 and according to the RCM website, this coin has ungone some major redisigning over the years. This particular version is either the 1987 "Loonie" version or the 1967 "Goose" version (sorry I don't know the difference between a loon and a goose), but in either case this design seems as if it would too recent to be PD. That means this would be a DW that Commons shouldn't keep (regardless of the photo's licensing) since the design of the coin wouldn't be PD in Canada.
Did I get things right with respect to those too particular examples or am I still missing something important? -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I think you are correct on all the examples. I am not an expert on coins, but it seems to me that the leaf (1 cent) and the caribou (25 cents) designs are indeed both in the public domain. The loon (one dollar) and the bear (two dollars) designs are too recent. Yes, the files should probably have a PD status tag for the design and a license tag for the photo. -- Asclepias (talk) 04:59, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for checking. I've DR'd #3. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:21, 19 June 2019 (UTC)


Thanks for answering my questions. If I may ask another, wouldn't it be faster for you to avoid Xfd and apply copyvio speedy tags, per Commons:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#File, criterion 1? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:05, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@Shawn in Montreal: It would be faster, yes, but not necessarily better or proper. In cases of derivatives (a photo of an artwork), there can be some level of subjectivity in judging various elements, such as the size and the function of the artwork in the picture, etc. So, there's a sort of consensus on Commons that deletion requests for reason of derivatives should preferably be made through ordinary requests, not speedies. Something that may seem obvious to the nominator may not be seen in the same manner by another user. After all, that's why the ordinary procedure of deletion requests is the procedure with discussion. Also, there are elements that the nominator may not have known or thought about. For example, we sometimes see deletion requests where a nominator requests deletion of photos that show whole bottles with their labels, when actually the practice on Commons is to keep such photos. We can catch such a case and keep the file when it is a request with discussion, but we may not catch it in time if the request is a speedy and if an admin deletes it by mistake. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for all your patient responses. I have been working to clean up thousands of images at Category:Uncategorized images of Quebec, which were mainly images of public art in my native Montreal. It's been a real labour of love and I've learned a lot about my own city's culture. However it seems to me that Mindmatrix has been uploading a lot of 2-D works such as murals, even after having received multiple notices. I see that Commons:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#File does allow for blocks in cases where an editor refuses to cease -- but I leave it to you whether a more formal warning is required in this case. thanks Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:48, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey[edit]

RMaung (WMF) 01:16, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Andre Forget[edit]

Hi Asclepias, just a note that lately the EXIF info for photos from Andrew Scheer's flickr have been incorrect. The "image title" field is set to "Official Leader of the Opposition and Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer speaks at the FCM annual conference in Quebec City May 31, 2019. Photos Andre Forget" for a lot of the photos (for example File:Andrew Scheer at the Maclean's–CityTV debate in Toronto (48727239747).jpg) and the photos are not from Quebec City and also not from May 31, 2019. So, we cannot be 100% sure that Andre Forget, one of Scheer's photographers, took the photo. // sikander { talk } 🦖 23:17, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey[edit]

RMaung (WMF) 15:25, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey[edit]

RMaung (WMF) 20:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Lazerges père et fils[edit]

Bonjour, Merci pour la rectification de mon erreur concernant les tableaux La Rêverie et À la fenêtre que j'avais attribués à tort à Paul Jean-Baptiste Lazerges et non pas à son père Jean Raymond Hippolyte Lazerges. J'ai profité de cette alerte pour corriger une autre erreur similaire concernant le tableau Algériennes autour de la fontaine. Il est cependant dommage que l'intitulé de la photo reste bien entendu erroné. Je pourrai réimporter ces trois photos avec la bonne dénomination et demander la suppression des anciennes. Qu'en penses-tu ? Quoi qu'il en soit, merci encore. Robert Valette (talk) 09:10, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@Rvalette: Bonjour, Il n'est pas nécessaire de téléverser de nouveaux exemplaires. Il est possible de changer les titres des fichiers existants. C'est d'ailleurs ce qu'a proposé l'utilisateur qui a signalé la situation dans la page Commons:Village pump#Hippolyte & Paul Lazerges. L'outil pour effectuer les renommages est disponible pour certains utilisateurs, mais n'importe quel utilisateur peut demander un renommage en plaçant le modèle Rename dans la page du fichier, en mentionnant la raison et une suggestion d'un nouveau titre. En fait, pour renommer les deux fichiers, je pense qu'on attendait un peu de savoir si tu étais d'accord. Maintenant, si tu es d'accord, je peux me charger d'effectuer directement le renommage des trois fichiers. Tu n'as qu'à m'indiquer ci-dessous les nouveaux titres que tu souhaites donner à chaque fichier. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:48, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Merci de m'avoir signaler la possibilité de renommer un fichier, ce que j'ignorais. Je préfère que tu te charges de ce travail car je crains de faire des erreurs et je ne connais absolument pas l'anglais. Pour ces trois photos à savoir Rêverie, Algériennes à la fontaine et A la fenêtre il faut remplacer le prénom Paul Jean-Baptiste par Hippolyte. (Pour l'anecdote Hippolyte veut dire en grec Cheval de pierre). Avec le bonjour d'un marseillais.Robert Valette (talk) 07:32, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
@Rvalette: C'est fait. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:52, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Parfait, j'ai vuRobert Valette (talk) 15:57, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Je fais suite à une conversation précédente concernant la publication d'une lettre recue de MIVILUDES[edit]


Je souhaite vous montrer les recherches que j'ai effectuées sur ce sujet en réponse à votre message.

Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Requesting support for a template covering a specific French public domain revision

Merci MireilleBernadac (talk) 20:50, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Bonjour, J'ai répondu dans la page liée. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Canadian Federal Election Cartogram 2019.svg[edit]

Thank you for your thoughtful question. I agree completely that one hexagon per riding would have been prettier, and concede that my version is rather unattractive by comparison. However, there are two reasons I went with seven hexagons, anyways. Primarily, this allowed me to fulfill one of my goals, which was to preserve as much as possible the principle that ridings which share borders geographically also share borders on my map. When you hover the mouse over the .svg file and go from riding to riding and see the riding names change in an understandable way, this is, to my mind, a pleasing effect. This was impossible to achieve completely, especially for the far north ridings, but using more hexagons allowed me to do this for a large majority of ridings, since it allowed me to "stretch" the riding when needed (similar to cartograms that are auto-generated from geographical maps). So, it was a design compromise.

The secondary reason I didn't go with a single hexagon map is that such maps are already available online (for the 2015 election, at least), so doing one that way wouldn't add anything new to the discourse.

That said, if someone provides a maps based on a different principle which the community prefers, I would be glad to defer and replace my map with that one. JoeSchlabotnik (talk) 16:01, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Mellilo, Eric portrait.jpg[edit]

Bonjour. Oui, vous avez raison, c'est une erreur de ma part. Cordialement, --Patrick Rogel (talk) 10:57, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Important message for file movers[edit]

Commons File mover.svg

A community discussion has been closed where the consensus was to grant all file movers the suppressredirect user right. This will allow file movers to not leave behind a redirect when moving files and instead automatically have the original file name deleted. Policy never requires you to suppress the redirect, suppression of redirects is entirely optional.

Possible acceptable uses of this ability:

  • To move recently uploaded files with an obvious error in the file name where that error would not be a reasonable redirect. For example: moving "Sheep in a tree.jpg" to "Squirrel in a tree.jpg" when the image does in fact depict a squirrel.
  • To perform file name swaps.
  • When the original file name contains vandalism. (File renaming criterion #5)

Please note, this ability should be used only in certain circumstances and only if you are absolutely sure that it is not going to break the display of the file on any project. Redirects should never be suppressed if the file is in use on any project. When in doubt, leave a redirect. If you forget to suppress the redirect in case of file name vandalism or you are not fully certain if the original file name is actually vandalism, leave a redirect and tag the redirect for speedy deletion per G2.

The malicious or reckless breaking of file links via the suppressredirect user right is considered an abuse of the file mover right and is grounds for immediate revocation of that right. This message serves as both a notice that you have this right and as an official warning. Questions regarding this right should be directed to administrators. --Majora (talk) 21:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)