User talk:Yann

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

/archives 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

God is busy, may I help you? / Dieu est occupé, puis-je vous aider?

You can leave me a message in English or French, at the bottom. Click here. Yann 22:13, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Merci des conservations, Yann. Et bonne année ! Nomen ad hoc (talk) 09:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC).

Bonjour Yann (talk · contribs). Je ne comprends pas pourquoi vous avez restauré les photos supprimées. Il me semble très imprudent de faire confiance aux affirmations farfelues de Nomen ad hoc (talk · contribs) sur "le compte officiel" et "les autorisations des photographes".

J'ai demandé de nouveau les suppressions. Vous souvenez-vous qu'en novembre, vous aviez demandé à Ecole des d'envoyer les autorisations OTRS ? 12 November 2016, Yann ask OTRS confirmation,_rue_de_Richelieu,_par_Fran%C3%A7ois_Hollande,_pr%C3%A9sident_de_la_R%C3%A9publique.jpg

Aucune suite. "Cela ne sent pas bon le propre", comme disait ma mémé.

Je partage l'avis d'un de vos collègues administrateurs :

see the argumentation for another photo (École des chartes) by Jameslwoodward [here,_rue_de_Richelieu,_par_Fran%C3%A7ois_Hollande,_pr%C3%A9sident_de_la_R%C3%A9publique.jpg] Deleted: Requires a free license from the photographer or from École des chartes. In the latter case, the e-mail must include a copy of the written agreement with the photographer that allows École des chartes to freely license the image -- either of this via the procedure at OTRS. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:10, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Je pense qu'il faut se méfier des affirmations sans aucune preuve que Nomen ad hoc matraque sur les débats de suppression. Ses "conservation immédiate" "problème résolu" "untel officiel" n'apportant aucune preuve, elles n'ont aucune valeur, et devraient être traitées par le mépris.

Je vous présente mes meilleurs vœux --Droit de retrait 03 (talk) 05:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Droit de retrait 03, je suis d'accord qu'une confirmation du compte est nécessaire, mais sur le fond Nomen ad hoc a raison. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 09:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Je ne comprends pas pourquoi vous écrivez que Nomen ad hoc a raison ? Plusieurs administrateurs ont dit qu'il fallait détruire ces fichiers (car pas d'autorisation OTRS). Nous attendons une confirmation OTRS depuis novembre (pour le compte et pour l'autorisation des photographes). Nomen ad hoc ne fournit aucune preuve, et vous me dites qu'il a raison "sur le fond" ? "Le fond" de Nomen ad hoc, ce sont des affirmations mensongères selon lesquelles le compte est officiel (aucune preuve), et que les autorisations des photographes existent (aucune preuve).
Cordialement --Droit de retrait 03 (talk) 10:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


Hello, Yann,

Thanks for making the controls. I did not intend to violate privacy policies. I'm training on the Wikipedia platform and I'm learning. I'll try to be much more careful with the photos. Thanks for correcting me, and sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SelimDavidMusali (talk • contribs) 19:29, 02 January 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:South Shetland-2016-Deception Island–Chinstrap penguin (Pygoscelis antarctica) 04.jpg‎[edit]

Hello.Why you nominated a certain stolen file like this file for deletion?!This file is candidate locally and if it was marked (on 15 January 2017), would be wrong marking.Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 14:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2: Sorry, but 1. I don't understand what you want to say; 2. I don't understand why you asked for deletion of this file. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
this is certain stolen file.Why did not delete it immediately, without discussion?Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 14:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2: You don't provide any valid rationale for deletion, it is a high resolution image with EXIF data, a quality image and a featured image on the English Wikipedia. That alone is a sufficient reason to have a proper DR. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:37, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Re:Casio de Granada[edit]

Dear Yann,

None of the files you've marked is a copyright violation; all of them are original images. Before doing such a grave accusation to an experienced user like me, I think you must prove it, instead of staining my work here. Can you please tell me the site where I took that images?

Sincerely, --Casio de Granada (talk) 15:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Casio de Granada, The files you uploaded are obviously not created by you. As an example, File:Orquesta Barroca Catalana.JPG is a screenshot from [1] at 3:32. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:32, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


Why did you delete this photo? In additio, without a message to the uploader. This cynicism and boastfulness is unattractive and disgusting. --Norden1990 (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Norden1990,
1. The uploader was informed; 2. This is a copyvio from [2]. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
It was not copyvio, as it belonged to OTRS ticket:2009081610012122. (part of the Szeged University photo collection) --Norden1990 (talk) 21:19, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Norden1990, there is no permission. But I assume good faith, so I restored it, and created a DR instead. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Question about template[edit]

Last year I have mistakenly uploaded several non-free photos. But those images were uploaded together during only two uploads (I wanted to upload photos during one upload, but due to some problems I have uploaded them during two uploads (it was on January 8, 2016, between 02ː07-02ː38 UTC)). Later one half of photos was deleted by other users, other half of photos — was nominated for deletion by myself (because I have understood my mistake).

But you sent me a template, which contains following informationː "You have done so despite requests from editors not to do so, and despite their instructions. This is your last warning." This information is wrong, because, as I said, I have uploaded copyrighted content only twice (it wasn't systematic uploading of non-free content); and I have nominated for deletion nearly a half of those photos.

So, can you, please, remove that template (wich contains information about last warning); and replace it with other template (which will contain only information about warning)? — صلاح الأوكراني (talk) 12:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

hi صلاح الأوكراني,
You copied images from the British Museum, but you are not allowed to do so without a formal written permission from the museum. Please don't do it again. Thanks, Yann (talk) 15:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about upload picture delinquently[edit]

Hello Yann, I send you this email to explain about this : Hello Kvd0012. It has come to our attention that you have uploaded several files that are copyright violations. You have done so despite requests from editors not to do so, and despite their instructions. See Commons:Licensing for the copyright policy on Wikimedia Commons. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter useful.

This is your last warning. Continuing to upload copyright violations will result in your account being blocked. Please leave me a message if you have further questions.

this is a long time ago since I connected to Wiki and now i come back and see this email, i'm very sad when i see this and i'm really sorry about that. I'm new member, despite of the face that i skim license, i'm very bad at English and i'm just student, so something in that i didn't understand quitely. To be honest, i'm really sorry about some pictures, please forgive for me. Thanks you very much God bless you, Yann Your sincerely, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kvd0012 (talk • contribs) 13:36, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@Kvd0012: Hi,
Your English is OK. For any image not taken by you, or previously published elsewhere, the copyright owner has to send a formal written permission. Please see COM:OTRS for the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Giuseppe Ferdinanso Piana[edit]

Hello, as I previously said in the discussion, the picture that I uploaded on commons is a picture that I took during an the display of this painting in Bordighera and therefore not under copyright. There fore I would appreciate if you could restore the picture. Im at your disposition in case you need any help.--Bettylella (talk) 14:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Bettylella,
It doesn't matter where you took the picture, the painting is still under a copyright. So you need the permission from the painter to upload this file on Commons. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I know, but I was allowed to upload this picture, during the same exposition in Bordighera I had the pleasure of meeting the family of the departed painter and they expressed their desire to see such page exist on Wikipedia and gave me their permission to use these pictures. Please just restore the picture. Regards,--Bettylella (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi Bettylella,
Someone from the family has to confirm the permission. Please see COM:OTRS for the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Restore photos[edit]

All my photos were created by me, and I approve of them being here, please restore them.

And stop this shit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elimnator (talk • contribs) 21:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Renomination to FPC of non-deleted photo?[edit]

Bonsoir, Yann! I'm not sure I understand the outcome here. There had to be a majority for deletion? I guess the determination was that these decorations are traditional in France and don't reach a threshold of originality? In any case, now that the decision is made, it would be just to reopen the nomination and feature the photo, wouldn't it? How would it be best to do so? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ikan Kekek,
These decorations are certainly mass produced, and there is therefore not a copyright.
Yes, you can reopen the FPC. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Yann. Do you know what the best way is to reopen the nomination? Can it simply be reactivated, with the votes intact, or does it have to be started again from the beginning? I will have to wait until I have an open slot, I think, but I'd like to revive this soon. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:17, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi Ikan Kekek,
You have to start again from the beginning. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:43, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Yann. I'm not sure how to do that, actually, as a renomination would pull up the previous nomination. But I can look into it in a couple of weeks or so. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi Ikan Kekek,
Add a /2 for the new nomination. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
At what point would I add the /2? I have to identify the file as such, so not at that point, but when and where? Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Like this: Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:2013-12-21 19-13-03 lumieres-noel-montbeliard.jpg/2. Yann (talk) 18:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Borrado de fotos a Algarabia[edit]

Las imagenes "controvertidas" aparecen en páginas web/blog que piden a sus lectores que divulguen su contenido a efectos de que su mensaje llegue a cuanto más gente mejor. Cabe entender que se les está haciendo un favor a reproducirlo en otros portales, tal como wikipedia, por lo que no puede considerarse como una apropiación indebida de los derechos de autor. Si no es así, lo siento. Algarabia 01:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Algarabia (talk • contribs) 01:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@Algarabia: Hi,
Many of your uploads were previously published elsewhere, so you have to send a formal written permission. Please see COM:OTRS/es for the procedure (in Spanish). Regards, Yann (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Copyright issue[edit]

The photos I have uploaded is my own creation. No others have any rights on these photos. I don't how others can claim rights on my photos. Please help me. I am not doing this purposefully.

Thank you

RohithKumarPatali (talk) 15:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi RohithKumarPatali,
Many of your uploads were previously published elsewhere, so you have to send a formal written permission. Please see COM:OTRS for the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:45, 10 January 2017 (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 | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


Yours sincerely, MCMLXXXIX 18:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Copyright violations on pictures[edit]

Hi Yann,

As i am new to wikipedia, i am still learning about the different copyright rules and exceptions and etc..You guys have a fairly strict and sometimes confusing rules for internet content. I thought mentioning the website and naming the artist would be enough... But I'm learning from my mistakes, i'm seeking for artists authorization now. Anyway, sorry for the the inconvenience.

Sylvia Ines H — Preceding unsigned comment added by SYLVIA INES H (talk • contribs) 18:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Please categorize[edit]

Having kept Commons:Deletion requests/File:Al mutanabbi group3051278.JPG please provide some form of categorization for it? Thanks. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Yann (talk) 22:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Finalize Advertisement[edit]

Hi Yann, please can you finalize ASAP this deletion request because of advertisement, regards and thanks, Sakhalinio (talk) 18:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Yann, thanks for deletions but you forgot main deletion request photo. Regards, Sakhalinio (talk) 22:05, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi Sakhalinio, Which file? Regards, Yann (talk) 08:54, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Khanda.jpg[edit]

Hi, can you provide a source for the claim that this depiction of this symbol would be hundreds of years old? Jcb (talk) 16:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Please read en:Sikhism. BTW we also have File:Khanda.svg. I would agree to delete the JPEG version if it is replaced by the SVG version. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
en:Khanda (Sikh symbol) states it's from the 20th century, that's why I question the copyright situation. But the same would apply to the SVG version then. Jcb (talk) 16:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
So what is the next step? A new DR? Jcb (talk) 21:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, please undo your action on this DR, per your own promise. Jcb (talk) 16:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Jcb, anyone can open (and reopen) a DR with a valid rationale. Sorry to say, but you don't have it here. I really don't understand what you are trying to do, but you are ultimately going into a wall. :( Regards, Yann (talk) 16:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Individual representations of a logo have individual copyright, as pointed out to you many times already by me and by e.g. @Jameslwoodward:. Till now, you have not spent a single word to explain why this representation would have it's copyright expired. There is not authorship information. The concept of the logo dates from the 20th century and e.g. the Unicode version is clearly a different representation. The logo is above TOO. We have no evidence at all that this file would be free. And then it's very unbecoming for and admin to (speedy!) close the nomination again after it's reopened. Doing so you are clearly showing that you do disdain me. You are my colleague, not my boss. Jcb (talk) 21:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry again Jcb, but your arguments do not make sense. This is not a logo. It is a modern evolution to a centuries old symbol, and it is quite obvious, except to you, that there is no copyright on it. It is quite a stretch to claim anything new on this symbol. There is nothing original or even artistic here. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I disagree. The representation is clearly above TOO. What makes this logo so important for you that you were somehow unable to leave the renomination to a different admin as you should have done? Are you a Sikh yourself? Are you affraid that a different admin could come to a different conclusion? Do you understand that your speedy second closure gives the impression that you don't respect me as a colleague? For me it's not problematic if you have a different point of view on a copyright situation, but it is problematic if you are disdaining me. I try to work in a respectful way with other users. Am I asking too much if I expect the same from my colleagues? Jcb (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Again, this is not a logo. I think you waste your time, and mine, looking for copyright issues where there is none. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Please do address the issue that you are somehow not respecting me as a colleague. Jcb (talk) 21:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Please do not take this personally. I would answer exactly the same thing to anyone looking for issues where there is none. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Do you understand that by speedy closing the re nomination yourself, you give little room to 'not take this personally'? Effectively you are disallowing me to do a renomination and apparently feeling yourself somehow higher in rank than your colleagues. Again: Why didn't you leave the second DR to a colleague as you should have done? Jcb (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Since I was pinged above, I'll comment. I think that while Johan has a point here -- that individual representations of this sort of symbol can have a copyright and this symbol cannot have been drawn more than 100 years ago, the likelihood of problems is so low as to be vanishing. Perhaps the best thing is to take Yann's suggestion and delete the JPG after all uses are replaced with the SVG -- we know the SVG is PD. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


Bipolar moment? Face-smile.svg - Reventtalk 05:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I think I closed this by accident. Thanks for noticing. Yann (talk) 09:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Revent: I know your comment above was intended to be a humorous remark between you and Yann, and I also noted the smiley, but please consider that not all users seeing such a joke with reference to mental illness sees it as a funny remark. Not something I want to make a mountain out of, as I am sure you did not think of that possible perception when you wrote it. -- Slaunger (talk) 18:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
@Slaunger: Sorry if you took it as offensive, but that was in no way intended as a reference to a mental illness (and, tbh, I don't think it would particularly make sense that way). The comment was about him accidentally keeping an image on the basis of a reason for deleting it.. 'having or showing two opposite principles, sets of values, or opinions' is a primary meaning of the word. My dictionary doesn't even mention 'bipolar disorder' when defining it. - Reventtalk 01:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
@Revent: If I enter 'bipolar' on two different search engines (Google and duckduckgo) and look at just the ten first hits (as far as I bothered look), they all refer to articles or web pages about bipolar disorder, which is a mental illness. I think you may need a new dictionary or use another source as its primary definition does not represent the most commonly understood meaning of that word. I did not take personal offense by the way, but I would never have used 'bipolar' in a joking remark myself, as it can be easily misunderstood. Again, I perfectly understand this was intended as a joke, as very few people are likely to see it anyway on this talk page. -- Slaunger (talk) 17:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
@Slaunger: Bipolar disorder is named that after the 'bipolarity' of the emotional state of the people that suffer from it, but many 'other things' completely unrelated are also bipolar (a magnet, or the planet Earth, would be obvious examples). I did not think anyone (especially Yann) would take the comment as any kind of reference to 'emotional bipolarity' (the mental illness), but instead to the 'logical' bipolarity of his obviously mistaken edit.... there was rather obviously nothing 'emotional' involved. I'm perfectly fine with not using the word, but "contradicting yourself today?" would have expressed what I was saying just as well.
Honestly, that 'society' has misappropriated a technical term to imply a specific use of that term is not unusual. I simply had a technical education, where the term was commonly used in other senses (a 'bipolar' magnetic field, as opposed to a more complex one, for instance). FWIW, from glancing a few other dictionaries, the use of the term 'bipolar' to refer to the mental illness seems to be specifically 'set aside' as something like 'of psychiatric illness'. I have no reason to think that Yann is any more mentally ill than myself (he's probably less, to be honest). - Reventtalk 01:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I came here for something else and see this. A search on the phrase lead me to this which is not related to BD. So I think this is another incident where words are split to find a meaning where the entire phrase has a different meaning. Jee 04:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Deletions, copyright violations[edit]

Apologies for what are considered copyright violations. The women in the photos are long retired, no longer active on the net. Did not realize this meant there were still copyright violations. In fact, one of the current photos on Wrestling (BDSM) -- Smackdown -- is of one of the women I uploaded. That is why I thought there were no copyright issues.

As far as the photo of John Mulholland, he is a publicfigure, director and writer. Didn't realize couldn't add a photo of him.

Again, sorry! cbee (talk) 14:43, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi cbee,
The subject has no bearer on the copyright. What matter is the photographer. If the pictures are not yours, you need a formal written permission before uploading them. Please see COM:OTRS for the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


Hi! Could you review this image from Bollywood Hungama? File:Aitraaz_cast.jpg has been used in an FAC which is about to be promoted. I would appreciate your gesture. Thanks.Krish! (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Yann (talk) 20:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks buddy. Plus could you review few more (see my contributions). The first six pictures were added way back in April 2016. However, I forgot to add the Bollywood Hungama license template and they were never verified. I realised his today and added those templates. Please help me. I would appreciate you gesture. Thanks.Krish! (talk) 20:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:117 France, Mont Saint Michel.jpg[edit]

Hi, thank you. In this request I wrote "Please delete also the other paintings in Category:John Delisle Parker". Can you please delete then all?--Karsten11 (talk) 11:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Yann (talk) 12:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Great. Many thanks.--Karsten11 (talk) 13:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Guidance needed[edit]

Hello, my friend. Please say what I did wrong and how I can do it better in the future. [3][4]

Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Anna Frodesiak,
These are HR pictures with EXIF, and the copyright owner mentioned in EXIF matches the uploader's name, so I think a proper DR is better. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
But what is an "HR" picture? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi Anna Frodesiak,
Sorry for the jargon. HR = high resolution, Regards, Yann (talk) 13:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
No, not at all. I just figured that out and was about to post here to say so. Okay, so, if it is an HR pic, that probably means it is not from some website where the uploader just grabs it, right? It means the uploader probably has the rights or that sort of thing, am I guessing right? Now, I'm using Irfan and the EXIF doesn't show me anything but numbers and such. Finally, is a deletion request the best way to go if the uploader made a promo page at enwp and I blocked him there for that? I guess that is an indication he works for them, right? I figured he did, but did not have the rights to the images considering that tineye showed them from here and there. I guessed he was an employee told to make a Wikipedia page and just shopped for pics at google. Please tell me what to do in these sorts of cases and I will follow that from now on. Many thanks for your patience. I'm still learning after all these years.  :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi Anna Frodesiak,
Yes, that's it. Speedy deletions are for obvious copyright violation. I don't think it is a copyright violation here. These look like professional shots made for promoting the subject, so it is quite probable that the company owns the copyright. The EXIF data is shown at the bottom of the description page. I guess they might be deleted anyway, unless someone finds a reason to keep them. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Understood. From now on, I will weigh out the resolution of the shot, the EXIF, and who the uploader is, and only speedy tag if clear copyvio with no reasonable possibility of uploader having the rights.
Would "no permission" tagging also have been an option in these cases?
Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Hi Anna Frodesiak. The copyright hlder of this image his "Ruza studio". This seem like a commissioned work in which the original photographer still retained the copyright of the work. There is no clear evidence that "Ruza Studio" is an employee of Suria Resort and Hotel. If we have to keep this image at all, the uploader must provide evidence of permission in form of written document stating a transfer has taken place. Note that Ruza studio's moral right is preserved. To be honest, this photo also qualifies for deletion per COM:ADVERT. Just as Yann rightfully said, we usually don't speedy this kind of file, instead we take it to DR. All the best. Wikicology (talk) 18:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Block Warning[edit]

Hi Yann. I've tried to add the necessary rationale to be able to use a company logo on the article Actin (software) and I now have a warning that my account will be blocked if I upload another logo. I'm confused about why the logos in the article I'm using as a guide (SolidWorks) are not in violation, but logos on Actin (software) are. Can you offer guidance on the next steps to use on Actin (software) and to use on Energid Technologies? Also, I work for Energid Technologies and have access to this software which I used to create all images except the satellite servicing image and have permission for them to be on Wikipedia. Thanks. B235R (talk) 14:05, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi B235R,
All files on Commons have to be in the public domain, or under a free license. So you need a formal written permission to upload anything here which you don't create yourself. It seems more suitable to upload your files on the English Wikipedia under a fair use rationale. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi again, Yann. Thanks for the links. I think I have correctly uploaded the images to Actin (software) and Energid Technologies. Would you mind briefly reviewing these articles to ensure I have satisfied Wikipedia's requirements? B235R (talk) 15:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi B235R,
Wikimedia Commons and English Wikipedia are quite different projects. Some policies are common, but revewing files here and articles there have with their own process and working teams. You may find online help on IRC channel #wikipedia-en-help. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Haute-Savoie.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, 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 | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Pierre73 (talk) 11:14, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Markus C. Blaich Führung Marienburg Hildesheim seitlich.jpg[edit]

Wo ist das Problem? Da steht als Lizenz: Creative Commons by-sa-3.0 de , wie bei 2000 andern Fotos von mir. --AxelHH (talk) 20:53, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, You need to use {{cc-by-sa-3.0-de}}. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
That is what I did: {{cc-by-sa-3.0-de}} Where is the problem? --AxelHH (talk) 22:33, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
No, see [5]. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:36, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
First I made a mistake, but 1 minute later it was okay. Where is the problem now? --AxelHH (talk) 22:59, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Now, it is fine, I fixed it. Regards, Yann (talk) 23:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

article Bob Boutique - illustrations sous copyright ?[edit]

Bonjour Yann,

Les clichés employés ne sont pas sous copyright. Je peux fournir des lettres (Editions Chloé des Lys pour la couverture (couverture que j'ai créée...) et Bob Boutique pour le logo actu-Tv et la capture d'écran effectuée lors de la diffusion de l'émission de Bruxelles News) certifiant que ces sources ne sont pas sous copyright. Quoiqu'il en soit, l'article sur cet auteur/journaliste a été effacé : pas suffisamment de sources secondaires. Le problème ne se pose donc plus.

Je vous remercie du suivi.

Cordialement — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwen Saint-Cyrq (talk • contribs) 06:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@Gwen Saint-Cyrq: Bonjour,
Il y a un copyright sur toutes œuvres originales par défaut. Et si ces œuvres ont été publiées ailleurs avant de l'être sur Commons, le détenteur des droits doit fournir une autorisation écrite. Voyez COM:OTRS/fr pour la procédure. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 09:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


Hey, I need to create this page j2k. which i have created before but if got deleted and i don't exactly know why? could you please help me with uploading the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gogoshzara (talk • contribs) 07:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@Gogoshzara: Hi,
For all works previously published elsewhere, the copyright owner has to send a formal written permission. Please see COM:OTRS for the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Anna Marchwinska[edit]

Hello, I have just noticed that my file:,_listopad_2016.jpg has been removed. I am the author of the photo and Anna Marchwinska had approved this. I restored the photo. Let me know, if something is wrong and I can correct?

best, Atomksk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atomksk (talk • contribs) 23:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@Atomksk: Hi,
You should upload the original image with full EXIF data, or send a permission via OTRS, as this is a small file without EXIF data. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)