User talk:Christophe Dioux

Image:Antimasonry French 1914.png

Bonjour,

Merci de mentionner la source. Yann 22:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

??? Bein, je comprends pas trop la question, désolé. J'ai fait moi même une photo (mention "own work") d'une affiche ancienne (1914, auteur inconnu) dans une exposition. J'en ai ensuite fait moi-même un petit fichier png pour illustrer un article (et aussi parce que la photo, sans flash, était un peu floue). Qu'est-ce que je dois écrire d'autre comme source ? Merci de m'aider. --Christophe Dioux 22:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, je crois avoir compris en lisant le bistro de ce jour: 1914, c'est trop récent, il faudrait retrouver le nom de l'auteur de l'affiche originale et s'assurer qu'il est bien décédé avant 1936, ce qui n'est pas certain du tout. Donc, je demande la suppression de cette imagesi tu pouvais supprimer cette image, ce serait cool (entre les 12000 catégories de demandes et les 4 phases des demandes de suppression, je suis un poil perdu. --Christophe Dioux 23:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Bonjour,

Si tu as fait toi même la photo, c'est peut-être bon, mais il vaut publier ta photo avec une bonne résolution plutôt une version réduite. Le logiciel se charge lui-même de créer des vignettes. C'est la preuve que c'est toi qui as fait la photo, et c'est beaucoup plus utile pour tout le monde. Cordialement, Yann 10:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Merci de ces précisions. En fait, j'avais retravaillé un petit png à partir de la photo parce que j'avais raté mes photos:

• Celle avec le flash était nette mais en partie masquée par le reflet du flash.
• Celle sans le flash était bougée et vraiment trop moche en résolution normale.

Comme en plus il y a le problème de la date de décès de l'auteur et de l'interdiction du fair use pour l'usage que je veux en faire (sur WP Francophone), je crois que je vais laisser tomber et trouver une autre illustration pour ce sujet.

Encore merci. Cordialement

--Christophe Dioux 11:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

--Christophe Dioux 11:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania.jpg

Why did you upload a new image? Evrik 21:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:CarteSiutationAbidjan.svg

Image deletion warning

Image:CarteSiutationAbidjan.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 image, 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. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file. In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Christophe Dioux 21:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:DiplomeMaçonnique1945.png

Why did you substitute the image with a smaller version? --Error 00:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Niagara Lodge 2 Images

Hi! I noticed that you removed the Freemasonry category from a load of images. The lodge is now under Masonic structures, which makes sense, on the surface. However, a lot of those graphics are not unique to this lodge or just the building. Why remove it from freemasonry then? --Achim Hering 02:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Achim!

Thanks for your message and apologies for being late in my answer. There were much too many pictures in the main category. In my humble opinion, if some of the pictures of Niagara lodge could/should be in different categories (for instance Image:Niagara lodge 2 caveman flag.jpg must be both in "Niagara lodge" and "masonic flags"), none should be both in the more accurate and the less accurate one. Otherwise, all the pictures of all the subcategories would be in the main category too, making it totaly useless. Just my 2 cents. Sincerely. --Christophe Dioux 21:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Okiedokie. I see your point. Sometimes I prefer having multiple categories simply because it makes searches more user-friendly. That's where I'm coming from, although I see your point quite well too. For instance, one of my fire protection pix may show a firestop, but then it may also show a pipe, so it is of interest in the category of piping because people involved with piping must consider items in direct contact with the piping or otherwise they are more likely to become party to building code violations. Then the firestop may be made of a type of caulking. So if you're just looking for pictures on caulking and you find it because it is categorised that way, you now have a window into the world of firestopping, which is a big part of caulking and then you can see why some caulking can be hard and some of it must be really soft so it can elongate to follow the movement of a penetrant. So having things categorised 6 ways to breakfast is a lot of work for the person uploading or categorising and it may seem redundant to the uninitiated who don't know about the topic, but for the person looking for information it makes things really fast and can open his or her eyes to other related information, which is of value to learning. So take the example of this caveman flag. I have no clue what the freemasons are on about with that. I don't know what it means to them. I know they are bigtime into symbolism though. Freemasons must have an interest in this because otherwise they would not surround themselves with it. Then there are those who suspect freemasons of wrongdoing or being of a nefarious character. I take no issue with either side. Whatever gets you through the night I say. But whether you're one of them, or one who is after them, or one who for whatever reason is simply interested in learning about them, cross categorising is helpful in searches because it shortens the length of time to find what you need and increases the likelihood you will come away with a more complete picture, which is what I believe Wiki is all about. So cross categorising I find not so much to be an issue of finding the more accurate category, because all may be right. Where the masons are concerned, I don't know enough to make that determination. One thing I know though, which is that the symbolism is not unique to any lodge. They all use the same logo, just like hockey will have the same rules in each club that plays it. So that's my 2 cents worth. Best, --Achim Hering 13:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

File:ProtocoleSagesSion.jpg

File:ProtocoleSagesSion.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. 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!

--Rosenzweig δ 15:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: File:GreatEye.gif

Hello!! i saw this image it was deleted... but i don´t if you SAW... the link it was redirect as a SOURCE to my OWN account in photobucket and i make myself the animation...

Photobucket is site when you can upload your own images... Is the porpose of this site!!

Where is the copyright here...?!? Thank you. --Lightwarrior2 (talk) 02:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Papus.jpg

This media may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Papus.jpg, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work. If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Polarlys (talk) 12:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

??? Absolument aucun souvenir d'avoir téléchargé un tel fichier, qui n'apparaît nulle part dans mes archives. Et comme il a été effacé en même temps que cet avertissement, impossible de savoir de quoi il s'agit. Mais bon, je suppose que ça n'a aucune importance. --Christophe Dioux (talk) 17:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)