User talk:Coyau/1

Hello !

Please, leave a message here : Coyau

TUSC token 6111915e1bd16ed200ed183fa429917b

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

WikiProject Commons:Photo scavenger hunts

Hi Coyau. I'd like to let you know you can now sign up as a participant in this new WikiProject. The WikiProject's talk page should be a good forum for future discussions. Thank you.--Pharos (talk) 02:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Jet directionnel.svg

Hi, it seems Commons is unable to generate a thumbnail for this picture, even though it is valid SVG (and Firefox displays it properly). If you notice the same behavior, you should consider uploading another version of this file (maybe without <marker>, see the limitations of the Commons SVG engine. --Tryphon (talk) 03:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I had the same problem with others SVG. I'll see what I can do to fix that. --Coyau (talk) 03:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hooray! It's much better now, thanks. --Tryphon (talk) 09:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Église Notre-Dame d'espérance

Are you more royalist that the king, or more red that the soviets. Concerning this church, I have discussed the authorization with the parish priest who told me, in most of the cases, the French church negotiates with the architects the free copyright for the photos of the buiding. He told me the church is the House of God, where the temple merchants have been driven out long time ago. Before deleting an image, please check. --FLLL (talk) 07:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Cariatide Wallace 4.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments {{{3}}}

Bonjour

Que c'est belle votre image! Saludos Lourdes (talk) 16:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gracias, pero este no es mi imagen es la de Lamiot (talk · contribs). Saludos --Coyau (talk) 16:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perdón... pero es igualmente bellas, ¿verdad? Lourdes (talk) 17:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Si, de hecho. --Coyau (talk) 22:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Il n'y a plus d'après à Saint-Germain ?

Salut camarade !

Je vois que tu as fait de merveilleuses photos de ton week-end ! Est-ce que ce pauvre pigeon est classé ou inscrit ?

--Pymouss Tchatcher - 20:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Salut !
Je viens de battre le record du dead bird le plus décomposé. J'aime particulièrement celui dont on voit la fesse gauche. --Coyau (talk) 09:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS C'est mon côté érotomane zoophile...--Coyau (talk) 09:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Encodage

Salut, j'en prend bonne note et tenterais d'améliorer mes transferts. A+ --P@d@w@ne 09:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Héhéhé

Bon, voila, avant de supprimer fr:Fichier:Cuivré à identifier02.jpg (vidange de fr:Catégorie:Désormais sur Commons avec un nom différent), je pense qu'un renommage de File:Cuivre identifier02.jpg peut être envisagé (bug avec Commons helper au niveau du "à" du titre sur fr). Bref, j'ai vu que tu es l'auteur du transfert et que tu es dans la liste des trusted users, donc... :o) --Coyau (talk) 20:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

J'ai demandé à le renommer... En utilisant {{Rename}}, où normalement, étant trusted user sur le truc... Ça devrait le faire... - Zil (d) 21:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Pavillon Aubette.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments {{{3}}}

Ping

Good day, Coyau. You can see your RfA here. Please accept, and I'll help you with the transcluding part. Good luck! --Kanonkas_(talk) 14:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pong ! \o/ --Pymouss Tchatcher - 19:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Valid SVG

It still seems to be invalid. Any ideas? Pbroks13 (talk) 18:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, feel free to upload it over the original. Pbroks13 (talk) 16:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Pbroks13 (talk) 17:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

alleged copyvio

you apparently nominated 2 of my pics for reason "no FOP" in france (took me a bit of time to figure this unfriendly lingo out), but i changed the template from copyvio->delete to allow for more time and explanations. imho these picture which i took myself i have the right to release under the license as stated, thank you! oscar 00:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ English ∙ español ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ العربية ∙ +/−

Félicitations Coyau! Tu es maintenant pourvu des droits d'administrateur sur le site. Avant de te lancer dans les effacements de page, protections de page, blocages de compte ou modifications de pages protégées, il n'est pas inutile de relire attentivement la page Commons:Administrateurs et de placer dans ta liste de suivi les pages s'y rapportant (notamment Commons:Administrators' noticeboard, Commons:Demandes de suppression). La plupart des actions d'administrateurs sont réversibles par les autres sysops, à l'exception des fusions d'historiques qui doivent donc être traitées avec précaution.

Il est possible de discuter directement avec d'autres admins sur IRC : #wikimedia-commons @ irc.freenode.net. Il existe également un canal dédié aux admins de Commons, qui peut être utile pour les sujets sensibles ou la coordination entre administrateurs : #wikimedia-commons-admin.

Tu peux également rejoindre #wikimedia-admin, le canal de coordination inter-wiki pour les administrateurs Wikimedia. Demande à n'importe quel channel operator de t'accorder une dispense d'invitation (alternativement n'importe qui sur le canal peut t'y inviter temporairement). Tous les admins de tous les projets y sont bienvenus.

La lecture de Commons:Guide to adminship peut s'avérer enrichissante.

Merci de vérifier ou d'ajouter ton nom à la liste des administrateurs et les autres listes, par langue et par date, qui y sont mentionnées.

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Ebrasement gauche porte centrale portail ouest cathedrale de Strasbourg.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Great, I don't see any problems. --Notyourbroom 18:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Ebrasement droit porte centrale portail ouest cathedrale de Strasbourg.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Great, I don't see any problems. --Notyourbroom 18:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Continuons, coupons, tronçonnons ...

Puisque le Tour Perret et la nouvelle verrière devant la gare à Amiens sont ... inadmissibles sur Commons et WP}} ... vite ! ne pas oublier File:Amiens Parcours du combattant pour personne a mobilite reduite.JPG !

A signaler quand même que la ville d'Amiens fut en très grande partie rasée par les bombardements de 1940 (seule pratiquement la Cathédrale a été épargnée) ! Conclusion ! Pratiquement AUCUNE photo d'Amiens n'est donc admissible .... Et quant à la Cathédrale elle-même ... tout ce qui concerne les illuminations et la façade colorisée ! Allez ... place au grand vide ! Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 (talk) 20:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Et il y a aussi à examiner le cas de la deuxième ville de la Somme, Abbeville, ... elle aussi détruite lors de la Seconde Guerre Mondiale ! Faisons place nette ! Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 (talk) 20:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Toutes celles-ci Category:Street clocks in Amiens, File:Amiens église St-Pierre 2.jpg, File:Amiens église St-Pierre 1.jpg, File:Amiens cathedral 028.JPG, File:Amiens cathedral Son et lumière 001.JPG, File:Amiens cathedral Son et lumière 002.JPG, File:Amiens cathedral Son et lumière 003.JPG, File:Amiens cathedral Son et lumière 004.JPG, File:Amiens cathedral Son et lumière 005.JPG, File:Amiens iluminacion fachada catedral.JPG, File:Colorisation amiens.jpg ... Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 (talk) 21:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:In-spire overview.jpg

Hi, could you explain you latest move on Commons:Deletion requests/File:In-spire overview.jpg, closing this discussion and removeing the image.

The deletion request was based in the assumption that, the File:In-spire overview.jpg is a screenshot or a series of screenshots, which, as far as I still understand, it is not. So why remove the image anyway. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 00:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've explained closure and deletion on deletion request. This image is for non-commercial use. --Coyau (talk) 09:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for explaining. I guess if I want I should (re)upload to image on the English Wikipedia under fair use/non free use.

There is one thing I don't understand, why wikipedia doesn't create the ability to upload these image under the same conditions (These documents may be freely distributed and used for non-commercial, scientific and educational purposes). All my work on the Wikipedia is for non-commercial, scientific and educational purposes. It even hurts that other people find ways to exploit my work and intentions. Do you happen to know if there any discussion about this? And if this is going to change? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 15:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason you don't want to answer this question. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 13:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I think you are mistaken about non comercial purpose of wikipedia : GFDL authorizes any use including commercial and both WP and Commons demand commercial use see Commons:Licensing. --Coyau (talk) 13:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not what I meant, but thanks anyway. I realize this seems to be an extreme complicated matter. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible. And may be my English isn't that good. --Coyau (talk) 19:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My English is neither that good. On the Dutch Wikipedia we have special wikipedia site for these kind of copyright questions where maybe I will refraise my question. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 20:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May be you could ask user:Abigor, he speaks Netherlands and he is well aware of Commons politics about licensing. WP have different politics depending of the different communities (I know the French one but that's all), so it is better to ask where you intend to upload the file. --Coyau (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perret

Que Force reste à la Loi. Amen. Morburre (talk) 06:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour à toi ! Bon, je viens de faire un essai pour voir comment ça fonctionne ! Il s'agit de http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Amiens_Tour_Perret_depuis_Boulevard_de_Belfort_01.jpg ... Remarques :

Je voudrais profiter par un simple copié-collé de la "description" que j'avais saisie pour chaque vue, avant disparition dans Commons
Tant que l'image existe encore sur Commons, il faut lui donner un autre nom ... c'est un peu contraignant.
Une alerte s'affiche quand même (avec un nom partiellement changé) ... je comprends : cela a trait non au titre mais au fichier lui-même !
Automatiquement, le bandeau "à transférer sur Commons" s'impose ! C'est nul, alors que justement est présent - selon les recommandations - la licence "fair use bâtiment récent" ! En comparant avec d'autres vues classées avec ce "fair use", je crois comprendre que c'est lié au bandeau licence Creative Commons ! Me confirmes-tu qu'il faut que je mette systématiquement la référence "CC-BY-SA-3.0" seulement dans le champ de saisie "permission", et bien sûr sans encadrement par les doubles {{}}.

- Marci ! Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 (talk) 03:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour. Bon, alors point par point :

Ça se comprend, la procédure dure une semaine.
Il me semble qu'il m'est arrivé de charger sur fr une image qui n'était pas encore effacée sur Commons, au pire il faut passer outre l'avertissement, et ça évite d'avoir à éditer tous les articles où l'image est insérée.
C'est ça. Ça permet de ne pas charger par erreur deux fois le même fichier deux fois.
Il me semble avoir vu que tu as trouvé le paramètre pourCommons=non à insérer dans le modèle de licence. Même si dans ce cas, ce n'est pas pratique, les images sous licence libre vont sur Commons, et il y en a quelques milliers sur fr, et c'est bien pratique quand on transfère dans l'autre sens. Trêve de commentaires, c'est lié à toutes les licences acceptées sur Commons. Il ne faut pas mettre sous cc-by-sa-3.0, je m'explique : il est entendu que l'architecte garde les droits sur le bâtiment, mais le photographe a les droits de la prise de vue — ça marche pour les objets en volume genre bâtiment ou sculpture mais pas pour les objets en deux dimensions genre tableau où la marge de création personnelle lors de la prise de vue est bien plus limitée (pas considérée comme une œuvre de l'esprit, il n'y a pas de choix dans le point de vue, dans le cadrage, c'est juste une reproduction) — donc le photographe doit mettre sa photo sous licence libre (comprendre acceptée par WP). Ça a une grande utilité, notamment quand le bâtiment tombe dans le domaine public, on sait sous quelle licence transférer la photo sur Commons. Si on ne met rien dans le champ de saisie permission, le modèle se débrouille.

Bref, et d'une manière générale, il est nécessaire de citer (motifs de suppression) les auteurs, les licences et la source, ensuite, il est utile de donner (pour l'utilisation dans les projets) une description, une date, etc. Amicalement, Coyau (talk) 20:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perret et la Tour Montparnasse

Bonjour, peut-tu m'expliquer pourquoi on peut mettre dans le Commons les photos de la parisienne Tour de Montparnasse sans permissions mais pas de Perret ? Salutations. Paterm (talk) 20:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour. On ne peut pas. Si tu parles de File:Montparnasse tael.jpg, la page de suppression est ici. Tout le monde ne sait pas qu'en France, les architectes (et leurs ayant-droit) gardent leurs droits d'auteurs sur leurs bâtiments comme tous les créateurs jusque 70 ans après la date de leur mort, et qu'une photo est considérée comme une reproduction qui ne peut être publiée sans l'accord de l'auteur ; ce qui explique que beaucoup de photos de bâtiments récents sont présentes sur Commons en violation du droit d'auteur. Pour achever de compliquer le truc, la situation n'est pas la même dans tous les pays (voir COM:FOP). Cordialement, Coyau (talk) 21:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merci beaucoup pour tes claires explications ! Cordialement, Paterm (talk) 21:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Double clôture

Salut,

Il faut deux admins maintenant pour clôturer une COM:DEL ? cf. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Melissamorgan.jpg ;) Cdlt, VIGNERON * ^discut. 15:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prudence est mère de Sûreté. --Coyau (talk) 14:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photos de "fer forgé"

Ben personnellement, j'en ai pas mal en stock ... balcons, croix de cimetières et calvaires ... mais pas le temps de les déposer pour l'instant ! Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 (talk) 15:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Fenêtre communs du château de Chambord.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good composition --Karora 01:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Briqueterie de la Bretêche - vieux four.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments good quality --Ianare 23:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Tour Sud - Château de Chambord.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Comment There is a slight lean to the left that could be corrected, otherwise good. --Karora 09:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Done Better? --Coyau 16:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Support good! --Karora 03:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Château de Chambord - escalier hors-œuvre.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Comment There is a visible stitching artifact near the top of the downpipe to the right of the stairs. --Karora 11:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC) I can't find it... Where is it ? --Coyau 12:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Comment 1660px across & 2125px down. --Karora 12:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC) I checked with original picture and I can't see a difference. For me the column is badly weathered, it makes kind of an angle at the 1/3 and lichen patterns seem repetitive on original picture too. Do you want me to upload it so you can check ? --Coyau 13:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC) Comment Thanks for checking. Since stitching errors are repairable I think it's good to be pedantic about them. --Karora 10:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC) No problem. --Coyau 15:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erreur

Hello, tu peux supprimer cette page ? m'a trompé. Merci.--Thesupermat (talk) 20:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done Pas de problème. --Coyau (talk) 21:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erreur bis

Hello, Cette image est mal nommée, il s'agit du lac des Minimes. Merci. --Thesupermat (talk) 07:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Le mieux est que tu re-téléverses l'image sous le bon nom et qu'on supprime la mauvaise. Je dis ça parce que la fonction renommer ne fonctionne pas encore pour les images, et qu'on utilise un bot qui recharge l'image (donc, après la manœuvre, elle n'est plus dans ta galerie et tu n'es plus dans l'historique). Il y a le modèle {{Bad name}} à mettre sur l'image mal nommée. Je ne supprime pas tout de suite, histoire que tu puisse récupérer la description. --Coyau (talk) 12:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok merci, je croyais que le renommage était activé. Je te tiens au courant. --Thesupermat (talk) 12:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ayé, sinon pour l'image que je propose, tu en penses quoi ? merci. --Thesupermat (talk) 12:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merci (pour les deux),comme çà j'ai un commentaire en français pour cette photo

--Thesupermat (talk) 13:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Maison Adam Angers.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments OK. --Berthold Werner 17:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Pont Alexandre III Paris 07.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support Good. Yann 11:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Camp celtique de la Bure - baraque 1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments {{{3}}}

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Hotel Pince Angers.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Sharp enough now. --Afrank99 09:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Afrank99's edit is good. Maedin 20:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good, thanks. --Coyau 01:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Demande de suppression d'image

Hello, peux-tu supprimer cette image, je m'étais trompé avec le nom de la rivière. La correction est faite, donc il peut disparaitre. Merci. --Thesupermat (talk) 13:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:1963 Cleopatra trailer screenshot (40).jpg

File:1963 Cleopatra trailer screenshot (40).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!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ 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） ∙ +/−

--Yann (talk) 18:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mobilier national

Bonjour Coyau,

Pas de problème, je vais faire le transfert dès que la page est supprimée de Commons. Bàt--LPLT (talk) 07:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Guirlande Panthéon de Paris.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support Good. Yann 16:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright sur les tags, les grafes, les slogans politiques et les graffiti ?

Si je vous dérange, dites-le.

Cette page n'est pas un forum, merci de papoter ailleurs.

Heurtelions, vu ta conception du droit d'auteur, de ce qu'est un auteur, etc. j'irai d'ici peu mettre mon nez dans les images que tu as chargées sur Commons.

--Coyau (talk) 10:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oups, désolée d'avoir squatté ta page de discussion. Veuilles bien m'en excuser. --Myrabella (talk) 02:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Les gens comme Miss Tic qui barbouillent sur des murs qui ne leur appartient pas sans demander l'autorisation du propriétaire, expriment par là qu'ils refusent la notion commune de propriété privée, dont la propriété artistique n'est qu'un cas particulier. Ce n'était donc pas une interprétation que de dire qu'ils ont une conception libertaire de l'art, et de considérer qu'ils ne revendiquent pas la propriété d'oeuvres qui squattent la propriété d'autrui. Ce n'est pas ma conception de la propriété, c'est la sienne. D'autre part, il y a déjà sur common une catégorie pour les pochoirs de Miss Tic: les autres photos sont présentées comme ayant pour auteur ... le photographe..

Dommage d'avoir effacé les cartes postales anonymes datant de 1900 et qui illustraient des articles de wikipedia. Ce sont les seules photos qui restent de cette usine qui a été démolie il y a plus de 50 ans et il est impossible qu'il puisse y avoir des ayant-droits.

Une statue-masque africaine (achetée vers 1965 en Afrique noire, c'est une antiquité) n'a pas d'auteur au sens du droit occidental : c'est une production collective qui entre dans un processus mythico-religieux. Le sculpteur ne se pense pas du tout comme un artiste qui fait une oeuvre originale dans laquelle il s'exprime lui-même. C'estr un anachronisme.

J'ai plein de très belles photos de grafes (datant sans doute de 2000) pris dans une usine désaffectée qui doit être démolie. J'aimerais bien les mettre sur common pour illustrer des articles. Il est évidemment impossible de savoir qui sont les auteurs, d'autant plus qu'il y a parfaois des recouvrements et des enchevêtrements ntre plusieurs interventions. Dans quelle mesure des vues fragmentaires ou reconstruites sont-elles considérées comme des oeuvres du pphotographe ?

J'ai aussi acheté une affichette publicitaire Teppaz que je comptais mettre pour illustrer l'article sur les electrophones. Mais elle date de ca 1958, ne comporte ni nom d'auteur ni nom d'imprimeur. Que faire ?

Cordiialement -- Heurtelions (talk) 14:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Puisque tu t'intéresses au graff, tu devrais savoir que depuis son procès perdu en 1999, Miss. Tic demande les autorisations aux propriétaires des murs [1], pour l'idéalisme, elle en est un peu revenue [2].

Pour le reste, si tu ne trouves pas l'auteur, il faut prouver qu'il est inconnu (c'est pas donné, autant ne pas charger les images). Pour les graffs illégaux, il y a Commons:Image casebook#Graffiti. --Coyau (talk) 18:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS. tu devrais lire attentivement Commons:Critères d'inclusion. --Coyau (talk) 18:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bell towers in Calvados

Bonjour. Pourquoi avoir retiré toutes les fichiers de la catégorie "bell towers in Calvados" pour les mettre dans la catégorie "church towers in Calvados" plutôt que laisser la catégorie "bell towers in Calvados" dans la catégorie plus générale ? Je ne vois pas trop l'intérêt de cette translation. Une tour d'église peut-être un clocher, mais également une tour-lanterne, les deux catégories avaient du sens. Merci. --Karldupart (talk) 07:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Je n'ai pas retiré la catégorie bell tower, j'ai ajouté l'autre. Sinon, oui, les catégories ont un sens distinct (tous les clochers ne sont pas sur des églises et toutes les tours d'église ne sont pas des clochers), ça vaut la peine de les garder et de les remplir. Il n'y a pas de catégorie plus ou moins générale, en l'occurrence. --Coyau (talk) 08:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has been indicated that bell towers being church towers should only be in category church towers and only bell towers not being church towers should go into the category bell towers. Please keep account of that, not only for Calvados, but also for Essonne etc. --Havang(nl) (talk) 09:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, see introductory texte at Category:Bell towers and Category:Church towers. Church towers in France has been arranged recently. You also may look at the catscan category belltowers in France, all subcategories and catscan of all images --Havang(nl) (talk) 20:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FOP en France

Bonjour,

Au sujet de ma photo (File:Tour de télévision sur le Salève.jpg), il est nécessaire d'avoir un minimum d'originalité pour avoir un droit d'auteur, et ce n'est pas le cas ici. Cette tour n'a absolument rien d'original. Elle est absolument identique à n'importe quelle autre tour de télévision. En plus, elle est uniquement « utilitaire », ce qui, du point du droit d'auteur, la rend comparable à n'importe quel autre objet utilitaire (voiture, outil, etc.). Cordialement, Yann (talk) 10:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Je doute fortement de ce que tu dis sur l'aspect utilitaire, mais si tu es sûr de ton coup, c'est bon pour moi. --Coyau (talk) 11:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Padoux église 05 détail.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments good --George Chernilevsky 18:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Moyemont église 03 pentures.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments nice composition --Ianare 19:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Padoux pompes 01.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments good quality --George Chernilevsky 14:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pour info

Salut Bapti,

Je vois que tu demandes une autorisation OTRS à Pahlpwack‎ (talk · contribs), j'en ai discuté par mail avec la personne qui s'occupe de ce compte et normalement l'autorisation devrait arriver un de ces jours. Cdlt, Coyau (talk) 23:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Salut Coyau,

Le monsieur a été plus réactif que toi puisque les neufs fichiers dans Category:Jacques Le Nantec disposent désormais d'une autorisation :))

Tes explications ont visiblement été bénéfiques puisqu'il a envoyé du premier coup la bonne autorisation pour ces images (le rêve....). Il manquait simplement une confirmation pour deux photos d'où le bandeau "Pas de permission" que j'ai provisoirement apposé le temps qu'il envoit le courriel adéquat.

Tout est bien qui finit bien donc :)

À plus--Bapti ✉ 04:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Padoux église 08 horloge.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Nice detail. -Jcart1534 02:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commonist licenses

Dear Coyau,

As you might know Wikimedia is currently migrating from the GFDL to cc-by-sa-3.0. Wikimedia Commons is also migrating and we're down to less than 8000 files (started with about 1,8M files) . Unfortunatly this number keeps growing because Commonist contains outdated license templates. You appear to be running Commonist, could you please change the following lines in your license.txt?

{{self2|GFDL|cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0}} should be changed to {{Self|GFDL|Cc-by-sa-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0}}

{{self2|GFDL|cc-by-2.5}} should be changed to {{self|GFDL|cc-by-3.0}}

{{self|cc-by-sa-2.5}} should be changed to {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}}

Can I also fix the images you have already uploaded by adding {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}?

Thank you very much, Multichill (talk) 12:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tip: Categorizing images

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ magyar ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ +/−

Hello, Coyau!

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

BotMultichillT 10:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Piroguiers - cleaned b&w.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.

fr:Villa Arson

Dis-moi ce que tu penses des deux photos de la villa Arson. Merci - Zil (d) 15:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bases Mérimée & cie

Bonjour,

Tu es beaucoup plus expert que moi pour ce qui en qui concerne ces bases. Du coup, j’ai pleins de questions à te poser.

Tout d’abord la plus simple : comment as-tu fait pour affiner la recherche (cfr. tes deux liens sur le bistrot) ? Cela me perturbe car je ne trouve pas les mêmes chiffres que toi (cf. le mail que j’ai envoyé). De plus, certains numéros de fiche en IA (donc issu de l’inventaire) porte sur des MH. Donc tous les MH ne sont apparemment pas en PA. Par contre, tout les PA sont apparemment des MH (en tout cas je n’ai pas vu de contre-exemple pour le moment).
Ensuite, sais-tu qui contacter au ministère à propos de ces bases ? (est-ce au moins les mêmes personnes qui gère toute ces bases, ou bien y a t-il une « équipe » par base ?). Ce serait bien de monter un vrai partenariat (qui serait -à mon avis- profitable aux deux parties).
Finalement as-tu des stats, données, etc. sur ces bases (genre le volume total, le détail du contenu, la répartition géographique, etc.)

J’avais jamais regardé la base Mémoire de près (je tombais toujours sur de vieilles photos que l’on pouvait refaire et souvent en mieux) mais je me rend compte qu’elle contient quelques trésors, merci de l’avoir mentionnée. Cdlt, VIGNERON * ^discut. 08:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Encore une question : l’Opéra de Rennes est-il classé ? inscrit ? les deux ? Je dirais les deux mais j’ai un doute. Cdlt, VIGNERON * ^discut. 13:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
Alors, les réponses aux questions :

Pour affiner la recherche, il faut se servir de la recherche avancée. J'ai rempli "localisation" et "domaine(s) de recherche" (INV/MH). Ici le mode d'emploi. Ils fiches PA sont les fiches rédigées par le service des MH, et les fiches IA par le service de l'inventaire — voir les entêtes de fiches —, donc une fiche IA (en général avec un historique plus détaillée, la notice sur la protection est parfois légère) peut tout à fait porter sur un MH ; dans ce cas elle est en "doublon" de la fiche MH.
Le contact, il faut que je voie. je te tiens au courant par mail.
Pour les quantités, « Au 31 décembre 2007, il y avait 42 967 monuments répartis comme suit : 14 344 classés et 28 623 inscrits au titres des monuments historiques » (cf. WP), ça ne répond pas à la question, mais c'est quand même une indication pour des ordres de grandeur.
On ne peut pas refaire les photos des bâtiments dans l'état où ils étaient il y a 120 ans (avant restauration/ruine) — par exemple le château de Suscinio. D'autre part, il faut reconnaître que bien souvent on a des photos (floues, mal cadrées, etc) qui n'arrivent pas à la cheville (qualitativement parlant) des photos qu'on pourrait refaire, mais qu'on ne refait pas (bref, je reste réservé sur le "en mieux"). Une chose importante, tous les photographes ne sont pas morts il y a plus de 70 ans (j'ai vu des photos couleur avec la date en rouge en bas à droite), du coup il faut être prudent.
L'opéra de Rennes est en partie classé et en partie inscrit (c'est tout le fun des MH et des catégories). Il y a trois arrêtés de protection en 1961, 75 et 83. Si tu veux savoir qui est quoi, tu regardes la ligne "précisions", c'est extrêmement poétique mais tout y est.

Voila. Cdlt, Coyau (talk) 10:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, bizarre que les résultats de cette recherche affinée ne correspondent pas à mes résultats « à la main ». Je vais voir de plus près quels sont les différences (j’ai du compter en double quand il y avait une fiche MH et une fiche inventaire).
Ok, mail reçu (je sais pas trop quoi en faire pour le moment mais ça peut toujours servir, merci).
Le site indique 180 000 notices soit environ 78 % non MH (d’après tes chiffres). En faisant une recherche sur Ille-et-Vilaine, j’obtiens 26 390 résultats soit presque 15 %. Alors que pour la Seine-Maritime, je n’obtiens que 6 744, soit moins de 4 % ! Donc, grosse disparité. Si j’ai le temps, je vais faire un tableau voire une carte pour représenter cela.
Oui, potentiellement mieux (notamment parce que clairement libre de droit aussi). Même pour une image ancienne, le quai Perrache à Lyon ( IA69000477, la seule image de 1820) indique Droits diffusion reproduction soumise à autorisation du titulaire des droits d'exploitation. Si il s’agissait de reprendre une ou deux images, je passerais outre ces demandes d’autorisation qui me semble abusive (quoique, on en discute justement sur Wikimedia France en ce moment) mais ce n’est pas imaginable pour toute une base de données. Donc prudence quand même (par contre, je sens la galère, faudra-t-il contacter tous les inventaires locaux ?). Au minimum, je demanderais à Jean-Fred (quand il rentrera d’Irlande) de faire un modèle pour les photos issues de la base Mémoire (que l’on sache combien on est a et où, en brut le moteur de recherche de Commons me donne 68 fichiers, la plupart importés par toi apparemment ).
C’est ce que je pensais mais la notice est un peu trop « poétique » pour moi (note que la notice n’utilise même pas une fois le mot « Opéra » ! Les noms des bâtiments ne sont pas toujours les noms habituels/courant, ça aussi c’est fun).
- Sais-tu si ces arrêtés sont consultables ? (pas sur Légifrance apparemment...).

On peut continuer la conversation ici, ça évitera de doublonner et permettra aux autres de suivre plus facilement.

Cdlt, VIGNERON * ^discut. 16:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. J'ai complété fr:Base Mérimée et dans la foulée j'ai créé fr:Base Palissy et fr:Base Mémoire.
Je n'ai jamais essayé de consulter les arrêtés, j'ai toujours fait confiance.
Les dénominations des bases est parfois assez baroque et difficile à rapprocher de la dénomination courantes (et des articles de WP).
68, c'est possible. J'ai principalement importé des photos avec parcimonie (quand il y avait carence de photos « maison »), avec prudence (vis-à-vis des auteurs) et application dans le sourçage. De plus, les photos sont en assez basse résolution (pas trop mal pour les afficher dans un article, mais carrément limite pour une impression de qualité). --Coyau (talk) 18:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merci (effectivement c’est facile à faire et très utile).

Dommage, ceci dit, c’était juste une question comme ça, je sais pas à quoi cela ressemble.

Donc on est d’accord que les dénominations made in Mérimée ne peuvent pas vraiment servir de références ? (question subsidiaire, dans ce cas qu’est-ce qui fait référence ?)

Pour le moment, ça va (effectivement, tu as fait ça au mieux) mais le but du jeu serait d’aller plus loin et là même en indiquant l’auteur, mettant le lien et tout et tout, ça reste piller une base de données si on a pas l’autorisation.

En continuant mon analyse de la base Mérimée, je suis tombé sur des chose étranges comme le label XXe (les seules fiches dans le domaine ETAT apparemment, est-ce le fr:Label « Patrimoine du XXe siècle » ?) ou alors dans PREDOC, je ne vois pas ce que c’est. Cdlt, VIGNERON * ^discut. 12:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PREDOC, c'est les fiches « Inventaire général du patrimoine culturel (documentation préalable) » (exemple : IA75000006), des informations sommaires issues d'inventaires préliminaires, de recensements, de dossiers anciens, etc.
A priori, « label XXe » correspond au fr:Label « Patrimoine du XXe siècle », label pratique pour la catégorisation telle qu'on la pratique sur WP et pour repérer les trucs à ne pas mettre sur Commons (70 ans obligent). Je ne vois pas à quoi correspond le truc ETAT (en tout cas, ça ne correspond pas aux propriétés de l'État), mais si on trouve fiches « label XXe » en EA avec (EA13141168, EA17141220, etc.), on ne trouve pas tous les bâtiments labellisés (exemple : PA00079948). --Coyau (talk) 14:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, merci beaucoup.

Je suis encore tombé sur une notice poétique. Si je comprends bien le château a été inscrit (1926), puis inscrit et classé (1983) puis plus rien du tout (annulation à une date indéterminée) et à nouveau inscrit (depuis 2000) puis inscrit et classé (depuis 2003). C’est bien ça ? Cdlt, VIGNERON * ^discut. 14:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

pfff... C'est vraiment imbitable.
Après une heure et demie à me gratter la calvitie, j'en arrive à la même conclusion que toi. Le site du château dit « MH classé », et celui-là aussi. Annulation probable au moment des nouvelles protections. Il serait intéressant de regarder le dossier en détail pour comprendre les tenants et les aboutissants de la manœuvre.
J'en avais trouvé un autre rigolo : PA00132548 (classé, oublié et inscrit 150 ans après). --Coyau (talk) 16:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moi je dis qu’il faut brûler tout ça ; on se fera moins chier. Ou pas. Pymouss Let’s talk - 19:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

J'avais pas vu cette discussion, mais j'ai fait quelques essais sur User:Jean-Frédéric/Mémoire. Pour le Crédit Photo, j'ai remarqué qu'il figurait sur toutes les images de la base Mémoire que j'ai regardées ; et s'il s'agit de brosser le ministère dans le sens du poil, autant être super sympa. Jean-Fred (talk) 22:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC) Je quasi-plussoie Pymouss. C'est vraiment n'imp' des fois ces bases -_-'...[reply]

Salut. Je me dis comme ça (en fait je ne suis sûr de rien) que si les images de la base Mémoire qu'on a pour l'instant sont du pillage (Vigneron dixit), on ne devrait peut-être pas encourager à puiser là-bas avec un modèle dédié. --Coyau (talk) 23:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

De ce que je comprends, celles qu'on a ne sont pas du pillage... encore. Mais si on en pompe plein, alors oui ça sera du gros pillage des familles. On ne devrait peut-être pas donc, effectivement. Je me contente de préparer des ptites choses au cas où. Jean-Fred (talk) 00:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Base Palissy

Hello,

Avec toute l'activité et les débats autour de {{Mérimée}}, {{Palissy}} n'a pas eu beaucoup d'attention.

J'avais l'impression au début que les MH ne concernaient que des édifices,et donc que la base Palissy ne faisait que référencer des objets. Mais il y a aussi semble-t-il un système de classement/inscription. Est-il intéressant que le bandeau reflète cela ou pas ?

Jean-Fred (talk) 13:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Au début, les MH étaient uniquement des bâtiments, mais le truc a été étendu au mobilier (à prendre dans le sens mobilier/immobilier), c'est donc le même système de classement/inscription. La base Mérimée recense l'immobilier (bâtiment) et la base Palissy le mobilier (objets divers, bateaux, matériel ferroviaire, cloches, grues dans les ports, etc.)

Je dirais comme ça qu'il faut traiter pareil Mérimée et Palissy. (Je regarde à l'instant Mérimée : jolis, les paramètres !)

J'avais raconté rapidement les élargissements du corpus des MH là (pour info). --Coyau (talk) 16:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done, les mêmes paramètres que {{Mérimée}}. Jean-Fred (talk) 22:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Vomécourt église 04 porte.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good. --Cayambe 12:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

carte Michelin

Kikou,

Tu peux regarder cette page ? ya 2 scans de cartes Michelin. A pluche. --Thesupermat (talk) 11:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Renommage de catégorie

Bonjour Coyau,

Je me frappe la poitrine, car je n'avais pas vu qu'il y avait une discussion en cours. À ma décharge, la page ne comportait aucun bandeau indiquant cette discussion, comme pour Category:Universities and colleges by city in France. Cordialement. --Croquant (talk) 18:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Royan

Bonsoir,

Je suis tombé sur cette catégorie Category:Architecture of Royan 1950s dans laquelle tu as pas mal de photos. Malheureusement la liberté de panorama n'existe pas en France, donc à priori ces fichiers ne peuvent pas rester sur Commons — d'où cette Deletion request un peu massive. Ces photos sont acceptées sur fr: avec le bandeau {{fair use bâtiment récent}}. J'espère sincèrement que cette histoire ne te découragera pas de participer à Commons. --Coyau (talk) 23:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour Coyau,

Si tu supprimes cette catégorie, alors en toute rigueur et justice le ménage doit être fait aussi fait dans les catégories mères

Cette loi de non-panorama est, si on réfléchit un tant soit peu, inapplicable (c'est pour cela qu'elle n'a pas été tellement appliquée): il y a toujours des constructions dans le champ de l'objectif, et une bonne partie des photos françaises de Commons doit alors disparaître. Ce que je n'apprécierais pas dans cette histoire, comme tu dis, c'est l'injustice. Il te faut alors supprimer toutes les photos des villes comme Le Havre, etc... mais aussi toutes les photos de mairies ou hôtel de ville récents, ainsi que presque toutes nos universités. Je demande donc ta compréhension pour Royan, ville entièrement détruite en 1945. Mais si ton zèle te fait attaquer à ce problème, alors bon courage pour ce triste travail de destruction de notre patrimoine. Jack ma (talk) 07:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Je ne sais pas si ça va te faire plaisir, mais je ne fais pas une fixation sur Royan (voir ça, ça, ça...) J'ai bien vu que Le Corbusier avait repoussé ces derniers temps et j'ai commencé à marquer les copyvios évidents, la DR ne devrait pas trop attendre.
Je suis d'accord, cette loi est absurde, mais on l'applique sur Commons (COM:DW et COM:FOP) et elle est claire : l'architecture du XXe siècle en France est interdite sur Commons. L'argument acceptable est de minimis, la DR est une discussion, j'ai sûrement eu la main lourde, il faut voir au cas par cas. --Coyau (talk) 14:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Je sais bien que tu fais ton travail, mais en plus de Royan, il n'y a pas que les 3 photos que tu me cites. Il y a aussi la moindre photo où un bâtiment postérieur à 1930 apparaît, par exemple celles du campus de Grenoble ou de Lille, ..., ou des mairies, etc... Pour être constructif, y a-t-il un moyen par bot de rapatrier ces photos sur Wiki:fr ? Cela représente quand même plus de 110 photos, mais qui ne sont qu'une goutte d'eau dans celles qu'il faudrait supprimer si on appliquait à la lettre et avec constance cette politique. Jusqu'à présent il y a toujours eu tolérance, car c'était (soi-disant) difficilement applicable (le coup du pin parasol est discutable aussi; je peux dire que pou d'autres photos, je photographiais le ciel, et qu'il y avait un bâtiment autour ou à côté). Jack ma (talk) 15:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

C'est pire que « tout bâtiment postérieur à 1930 », c'est tout bâtiment dont l'architecte est mort il y a moins de 70 ans. Ça veut dire qu'il faut savoir qui et quand il est mort, en pratique (et comme les architectes ne meurent pas automatiquement à la réception de leurs chantiers), le XXe siècle est à peu près proscrit (sauf à donner les dates des archis). Après, avec cette histoire d'exception de minimis, c'est pas « toute photo avec un bâtiment dans un coin », c'est « toute photo dont le bâtiment est le sujet principal ». Tu as le droit de biffer les images qui rentrent dans le cadre de de minimis. J'essaye de trouver un bot qui fasse le transfert, dans le pire des cas, je veux bien t'aider à promener les images. Cordialement, Coyau (talk) 17:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merci. Un bot ou une procédure simple nous arrangerait vraiment. Par ailleurs, est-ce vraiment utile d'ajouter l'architecte si ces photos vont être supprimées ? Sinon, l'histoire des 70 ans après la mort de l'architecte inclut aussi toute la période art-déco en France (et quasiment tout le 20è: tout bâtiment dont l'architecte a survécu après 1939).Jack ma (talk) 06:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture of Royan 1950s

Bonjour,

J’ai entamé une discussion sur Commons talk:Deletion requests/Category:Architecture of Royan 1950s. Cdlt, VIGNERON * ^discut. 20:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour Coyau. As-tu du neuf concernant la migration des photos de Royan vers WP fr ? Je pense que ce serait une bonne chose de toutes les rapatrier en bloc, sans leur changer leur nom, avec un logiciel (ou robot), car il y en a un paquet. Jack ma (talk) 10:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

C'est donc fait. Merci pour ton message, je vais tâcher de m'en occuper sur wiki:fr; ce ne sera peut-être pas immédiatement. Cordialement, Jack ma (talk) 05:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

J'essaie de m'en occuper sur wiki:fr, mais beaucoup de photos sur Commons sont inutilisées aussi; j'en mets beaucoup personnellement, et j'essaie de faire suivre les articles. Ces photos seront utilisées, c'est sûr. Déjà, elles le sont dans l'article fr:Royan 1950. Je ne considère pas du tout Commons ni Wiki:fr comme espace de stockage pur. Mais il faut du temps pour mener les deux de front. Cdlt, Jack ma (talk) 17:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ce ne sont pas seulement mes photos, ce sont celles d'une ville et d'un patrimoine architectural et touristique uniques. D'ailleurs il n'y a pas que moi qui aie participé. Sur wiki:fr, j'ai averti le projet Charente-Maritime. Sur Commons, il vaudrait mieux informer tout nouveau contributeur par un texte dans la catégorie subsistante Category:Architecture of Royan 1950s, une fois purgée, pour le dévier sur wiki:fr par un panneau explicatif, et à condition que ces photos soient utilisées. Cordialement, Jack ma (talk) 05:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

D'accord. Je vais faire le ménage des catégories vides (j'avais laissé l'arborescence, le temps qu'elle soit reconstituée sur fr.wp) et on va mettre des modèles idoines dans les catégories qui restent. --Coyau (talk) 12:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Hôtel des Douanes, Bordeaux.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Estuaire de la Gironde - pêche au carrelet 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments
Nice and interesting image, but noisy (oversharpened?) sky. -- MJJR 11:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to fix it, but I had difficulties to see the noise (maybe my screen is not so good). --Coyau 22:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC) --[reply]
The problem is not completely resolved, but quality is acceptable now. I like the atmosphere and the true encyclopedic value of your picture. -- MJJR 10:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Coyau 12:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dead birds in monuments historiques classés in Rennes

Salut camarade,

Voilà, c’est fait [3]. J’espère que je ne me suis pas trompé de pigeon Pymouss Let’s talk - 18:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Maison d'Adam, Angers.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Xaffévillers église 05.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good. --Cayambe 20:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sainte-Hélène église 01 porte.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Ok for me. --Cayambe 20:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Town hall of the 10th arrondissement of Paris.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

Support all criteria met, best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 20:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ I dare oppose, sorry. VI rules for building scopes say about churches: "Not any church is worth a Valued Image scope. [...] there should be a good reason, like [...] being really famous, being architecturally exceptional" and this could be applied to town halls too, IMO. In the French WP article about that arrondissement, there is nothing about the building itself; we don't even know the architect; it doesn't seem to be classified among the French "Monuments Historiques" (that may help to assume that a building deserves a scope). Another issue is that the perspective adjustments seem to have distorted the proportions of the building (comparing the height of the pinnacle to the ground floor, for instance), so can we consider that criterion 3 is really fulfilled? --Myrabella (talk) 00:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info I've added a little text about the building on French WP.
About perspective correction, the building is at least twice as high as houses around, and this corner is less than 90deg, which makes distortion seem more important than it is. --Coyau (talk) 02:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Besides, all "monuments historiques" do not deserve a scope (see this list), and all interesing building are not necessarily classified among French monument historiques (or has the Blaye citadel become suddenly a possible scope for Commons when French Ministry for Culture has listed it on ?). This label is sometimes given on political bases, which have quite nothing to do with the interest of the building. --Coyau (talk) 18:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Of course, the "monuments historiques" label doesn't guarantee that a building is worth of interest; I simply said that it may help and give a clue. Thanks to your complement in the French WP article, we get the truly noticeable feature of that building: it was the most expensive of all the Parisian town halls. I still think that the top of the building is somewhat oversized in the nominated image, but there's no better choice in the Commons category => oppose removed. --Myrabella (talk) 21:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 23:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Base Joconde

Bonjour Coyau, Saurais-tu me dire s'il existe, sur la wikipedia française, un modèle "base Joconde" du ministère de la culture, comme il existe un modèle pour Mérimée et Palissy ? La base en question : [4]. Merci ! --Myrabella (talk) 21:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merci !!! Du coup, j'ai signalé l'existence de ce nouveau modèle dans fr:Modèle:Base Culture/Documentation. --Myrabella (talk) 12:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Et aussi sur fr:Discussion Projet:Portail:Arts et fr:Discussion Projet:Histoire de l'art (après l'avoir testé ;-). --Myrabella (talk) 23:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question pour toi (bateau et architecture?)

Tiens, si tu penses être capable de répondre finement sur ce point ? Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Viaduc_de_Millau-traversée.jpg

Esby (talk) 22:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Raaah, pile quand je pense clore la DR, un quidam passe avec des arguments pertinents. Qu'est-ce que tu en penses ? Jastrow (Λέγετε) 07:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coyau avait mis une réponse ici, maintenant, ca nous avance pas trop. User_talk:Esby#bateau_et_architecture Esby (talk) 08:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Il y a gourage de ma part ; je pensais à la remarque de User:Roulex 45 sur Commons:Deletion requests/File:Millau-Viaduct-France-20070909.jpg‎. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 14:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paname-sur-Commons

Bonjour (ou bonsoir) Coyau. Merci pour tes encouragements. Tu as raison de me signaler un aspect de la chose que je n'avais pas songé à prendre en compte. Je vais tâcher d'y penser. Mais peut-être dans un deuxième temps, car je jongle déjà beaucoup pour essayer de rendre le tout aussi cohérent et utile que possible. Une fois la base établie, je compte en effet repasser sur l'ensemble des catégories pour affiner certains détails et corriger d'éventuelles erreurs. Cela dit, les remarques et suggestions sont toujours les bienvenues :-) Mu (talk) 01:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Demande de renommage

Bonjour, pourriez-vous renommer cette image : File:V-2_rocket_diagram_(with_English_labels)_tr.svg en File:V-2_rocket_diagram_(with_Turkish_labels).svg. Merci d'avance--Alkd (talk) 15:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merci pour votre rapidité !--Alkd (talk) 16:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

stats mérimée

Suite à la demande de jeanfred sur irc:

Pages: 89 Cat: 1927
 Files: 25288 (24197) Templates: 1 Size: 34228.2mb
 DupFiles: 1092 DupSize: 1654.9mb
 Missing: 1
 Repartition:
  >13mp: 341
  7>13mp: 7022
  4>7mp: 4791
  2>4mp: 5041
  900kp>2mp: 3332
  100kp>900kp: 4476
  <100kp: 285

Esby (talk) 00:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merci vous deux. --Coyau (talk) 10:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eglise néoclassique... et Russian Revival

Bonjour Coyau, Merci de ton complément intéressant sur la VIC Commons:Valued image candidates/Karlsruhe StStephan.jpg. S'il fallait préciser et mieux définir le domaine, aurais-tu des suggestions ? Déjà en français, on verra ensuite pour les autres langues ;-) Ce que je trouve compliqué, en fait, c'est que le néoclassicisme n'a pas été un mouvement architectural concernant en premier lieu les églises, comme avaient pu l'être le roman, le gothique ou le baroque, mais plutôt les édifices publics, dans un contexte politique particulier. Bien cordialement, --Myrabella (talk) 10:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merci de ta réponse. Le nominateur a retiré sa candidature pour le moment, mais je pense préparer une galerie que je commenterai sur ma PDD, je te ferai signe à ce moment. Et en "Russian Revival", tu t'y connais un peu ? Des avis sur cette autre nomination seraient intéressants. Tu peux lire seulement la fin, nous avons d'abord tâtonné pour choisir le domaine ;-) Si le cœur t'en dit, merci beaucoup... et n'hésite pas à me dire si tu ne tiens pas à être sollicité avec ce genre de demande de conseil et d'avis :-) Bien cordialement, --Myrabella (talk) 10:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Demande de conseil

Hello, après discussion avec quelques wikipédien, il ressort que lorsque l'on poste des images sur commons, il faut charger seulement les images les plus pertinentes alors que mon point de vue était d'en charger un maximum pour offrir du choix aux utilisateurs de commons. Serait-il possible de faire le ménage dans mes images importées pour ne garder que les plus intéressantes ? Comme je ne connais pas la politique de commons sur ce sujet, je te demande, merci. --Thesupermat (talk) 08:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pour le plus bot ?

Je ne sais pas si tu attends que la DR soit close ou pas, mais tu pourrais éventuellement transférer File:DakarMonumentRenassance100109.jpg. Amitiés. --GaAs¹¹⁶⁷¹ 14:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ben non, je ne vais pas pouvoir le faire du tout, il n'y a pas d'exception à l'interdiction du fair use pour les statues (si grosses soient-elles), ça ne marche que pour les bâtiments. Désolé. --Coyau (talk) 14:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah pardon, je n'y avais même pas réfléchi (en plus 35% des droits appartiennent au président, de quoi faire bloquer wp au Sénégal

). --GaAs¹¹⁶⁷¹ 15:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bd Voltaire- L'accueil.JPG

C'est une oeuvre collective des habitants du 11eme St Ambroise, et donc pas de copyright. Salutations --FLLL (talk) 07:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Je ne crois pas qu'il faut être plus royaliste que le roi. Si aucun auteur n'est spécifiquement identifiable, je ne vois pas comment cette oeuvre peut être copyrightée. J'ai essayé de voir s'il y avait jurisprudence dans ce cas, mais n'est rien trouvé. On peut par contre, se référer dans un genre similaire, à des chants imaginés et chantés lors de manifestations qui ne peuvent pas être copyrightés car le ou les auteurs ne sont pas spécifiquement identifiables. Amitiés. --FLLL (talk) 07:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S qui n'a rien à voir avec ce qui précède, mais je vois que vous avez loadé une image de sanisette, dont le modèle est copyrighté, et qui donc ne peut être reproduit sans autorisation du fabricant. resalutations --FLLL (talk) 07:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Logo "Monument historique"

Croyez-vous que le logo Monument Historique ne soit pas copyrighté? Salutations --FLLL (talk) 13:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolument certain. --Coyau (talk) 13:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Eldh

Carl Eldh est mort en 1954. Ses sculptures sont copyrightés jusqu'en 2024. Salutations --FLLL (talk) 13:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Hôtel de Sully.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Hôtel de Sully, Paris, bas-relief 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Did you try to give a little more contrast? --Mbdortmund 13:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any better? I don't like to manipulate levels too much. --Coyau 14:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC) - Good as it is, IMO. QI.----Jebulon 22:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

re-Description

Salut.
Pour l'enthousiasme, pas de problème ! Après tout, on fait quand même ça pour s'amuser, non ?
C'est vrai que j'ai parfois un problème avec les descriptions et les catégories, je me contente un peu trop du minimum, n'imaginant pas que trop de détails puisse intéresser... En fait je m'aperçois que j'ai tort, parce que le "spectateur" de ton image peut la prendre par un autre bout que toi, auquel tu ne t'attends pas, si tu comprends ce que je veux dire. je vais tâcher de me corriger.
En ce qui concerne les reliefs d'armoiries : la devise et le blason en coin d'immeuble sont bien issus de la caserne de la Place Monge (j'habite à côté, comme tu peux t'en douter avec mes autres photos de la mosquée ou du jardin des Plantes). Le blason "à plat", que je date de la fin du XIXème siècle (il porte les lettres RF, donc c'est après 1875, et n'a pas de décorations (croix de guerre, légion d'honneur) donc c'est avant 1918), se trouve visisble depuis la rue Monge un peu plus bas, c'est le "pan coupé" à l'angle du collège Pierre Alviset.
J'ai triché avec le géocodage, en codant le lieu de l'objet et non le lieu de position du photographe, mais c'était pour toi, suite à ton message. ne le répète pas !
Bon, j'ai quelques drapeaux de la caserne Monge à mettre en ligne, je te laisse ! à bientôt et merci de ton message !--Jebulon (talk) 22:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

oui je sais, mais alors comment on fait sur google maps ? Moi, j'utilise un outil allemand recommandé par je ne sais plus lequel de nos amis teuton, ça devait être alchemist... qui relève automatiquement les coordonnées de l'endroit où tu cliques, tu vois ce que je veux dire?--Jebulon (talk) 22:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Je vois. Moi, j'utilise la "méthode 1 de Google maps", telle que décrite dans la rubrique en français sur le géocodage. je m'en tire très bien (enfin, disons que j'ai compris ! ). Au fait, tant que je te tiens, bravo pour tes différentes vues du Marais, j'aime beaucoup (Les reliefs de Goujon étaient réussis), ainsi que ta vision de la Place des Vosges (le portail, la plaque de Théophile) ! J'ai moins aimé ton hôtel de Sully en Image de Valeur, mais c'est un défi, j'irai y refaire un tour et je détrônerai ta photo ! --Jebulon (talk) 22:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ps, rien à voir : je m'aperçois que c'est toi qui a fait les cariatides des fontaines wallace. Tu devrais les proposer en set d'images de valeur, non ? J'aime beaucoup. Et c'est toi qui m'a fait découvrir que ces quatre dames étaient toutes différentes. --Jebulon (talk) 22:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

C'est marrant, personne ne comprend rien à ce qu'est une image de valeur, sauf quelques initiés. Le problème, c'est ce qu'ils appellent le"scope". Myrabella est pleine de patience et de gentillesse à cet égard, mais c'est un peu chinois, leur truc... Bon, en attendant, j'ai augmenté d'une unité la catégorie "caserne Monge", avec ceci...:)---Jebulon (talk) 23:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Place des Vosges, Paris, porte du n° 13.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality --Ianare 01:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Porte Saint-Denis, intrados.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Très bien vu, bravo !--Jebulon 20:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Plaque Théophile Gautier, 8 place des Vosges.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments very nice.--Jebulon 17:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Fontaine rue Charlemagne.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Ok. --Berthold Werner 08:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Laon

Mes grands-parents maternels se sont mariés à l'ombre de ces tours, juste sous la croisée que tu as photographiée... Je trouve tes boeufs très réussis. J'espère que tu as, comme moi, été frappé par la blancheur de la pierre, c'est une splendeur. Ma cathédrale gothique préférée, peut-être parce que c'est l'une des premières et qu'on y trouve encore des voutes en plein cintre (portail)...--Jebulon (talk) 22:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

moi, je ne suis pas laonnois, mais pas berruyer non plus, alors... Avoue quand même que cette butte avec cette dentelle qui la coiffe... On parle là-bas de la "montagne couronnée" et c'est vrai. J'aime beaucoup ta vue sous la voûte, mais j'ai peur qu'on te reproche du "bruit", et aussi la lumière dans les fenêtres, vraiment mauvaise au nord, avec peut-être un peu de CA... Mais c'est magnifique, j'ai tout de suite reconnu avant de lire.--Jebulon (talk) 22:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Place des Vosges, Paris, porte du n° 23.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments QI for me. Jafeluv 21:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Place des Vosges, Paris, porte du n° 01bis.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments needs a restoration (the door ;))---Jebulon 21:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Cathédrale Notre-Dame de Laon, tours occidentales 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Very nice.--Jebulon 22:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Saint-Omer Fontaine jardin public.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Ok. --kallerna 07:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Immeuble postmoderniste05920.jpg

Hi Coyau, you have tagged this image with {{FOP-cv}} but this should be strictly reserved for perfectly obvious cases. In case of architecture, there is always a question whether a building has mainly a utilitarian character or if this is outweighed by its artistic merits. Hence speedy deletions should be avoided in such cases and I've converted this into a regular deletion request: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Immeuble postmoderniste05920.jpg. Regards, --AFBorchert (talk) 08:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let's take the long way. Imo, this case is pretty obvious and the template was made on that precise purpose. COM:FOP#France is quite clear on the matter and there is (as far as I know) no question of utilitarian character of the building. There were many DR about no-FOP in France, and closure were always straight: it will be deleted. Regards, --Coyau (talk) 10:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Projet de template PD-France

Commons:Bistro#Projet_de_template_PD-France Pour info. --Eusebius (talk) 13:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Église Saint-Jean-Baptiste de Belleville - vitrail d'une chapelle.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments A bit dark at the top, but good work imho --Berthold Werner 11:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Fontevraud, façade abbatiale.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Comment le clochet de gauche semble penché: l'est-il dans la réalité? --Archaeodontosaurus 10:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dur à dire. ici ça n'a pas l'air très droit, là ça penche aussi un peu. --Coyau 06:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
QI for me --Archaeodontosaurus 07:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Fontevraud, chapiteau de la salle capitulaire.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments {{{3}}}

Move from Commons, looking for a better means

Conversation from elsewhere that was recommended that I come and knock at your door.

Occasionally we have the requirement to remove files from Commons to one of the sister sites due to copyright, yet we don't have a tool to undertake such activities. When it is a file that affects enWikisource, like Commons:Deletion requests/Some illustrations from Rothschild's Extinct Birds it is not user friendly with available tools, eg. we can import the file wrapper, though not the file itself. Do you know of a means to make this happen more smoothly, or are we condemned to downloading and then reuploading the file at Wikisource via manual means? Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I noticed this discussion, chiming in — sorry for intruding...

On fr.wp, User:Coyau set up a bot (fr:User:Le plus bot) to move easily some unfree images (no-FOP buildings) from Commons to WP. The bot needs admin rights to do so. Apparently, programming the bot was not really difficult. You could contact Coyau to know more on this. Sincerly, Jean-Fred (talk) 10:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering whether you had suggestions or specific advice that you could pass on. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

On a technical POV:

Here is the Pywikipediabot script I use.
And the right you really need to use it is reupload-shared, you have to see on the project you want to upload files on which user group has it (it is not the same on every project).

Otherwise, be careful with Licensing policy and non-free content (but of course you already are aware of this). Regards. --Coyau (talk) 16:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

De même...

Je te retourne la question :D Jean-Fred (talk) 23:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Message

Sur ta pdd de fr.wp. Ludo (talk) 18:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tinténiac

Salut. Désolé de t'embêter, j'aime bien cette église que je connais. Mais j'aimerais bien y voir clair dans ces "scopes"...--Jebulon (talk) 22:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

J'aimerais bien que tu m'expliques, parce que je ne comprends plus rien à cette histoire. --Coyau (talk) 07:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Salut. Dans le "guideline" en Français, il est dit que, si par exemple les cathédrales peuvent faire l'objet d'un "scope" (domaine) en tant que telles, il n'en est pas de même de toutes les autres églises. Celles-ci ne peuvent faire l'objet d'un "domaine" que si elles sont vraiment particulières, soit sur un plan architectural, soit en raison d'un pèlerinage célèbre, d'une histoire etc... On considère généralement en VIC, si j'ai bien compris, qu'une église, comme tout bâtiment, qui bénéficie d'un classement ou d'une inscription aux "Monuments historiques", est donc suffisamment "célèbre" pour faire l'objet d'un "domaine", ce qui n'est pas le cas du fait d'être répertorié à l'inventaire général (tout bâtiment un peu ancien en fait partie, même s'il n'est pas particulièrement remarquable). Voilà pourquoi j'évoquais ce sujet. Ton église n'est pas un MH, et donc je m'interroge pour savoir si elle peut, en soi, bénéficier d'un "domaine" propre. Voilà c'est tout. Mais ce n'est qu'une question et une recherche de cohérence, surtout n'y vois rien de personnel, ni acharnement ni harcèlement... A vrai dire, je suis un peu comme toi, je cherche à comprendre ce qu'est réellement un "domaine", et c'est manifestement là qu'est le débat, une fois sur deux... Les "animalistes", géologues et autres ont bien de la chance... Par ailleurs, mais j'ai déjà eu l'occasion de te le dire, j'aime vraiment beaucoup tes photos ! Bien cordialement, --Jebulon (talk) 10:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non, c'est le contraire : l'inventaire recense les éléments intéressants et pas forcément anciens (la preuve, l'église de Tinténiac a seulement 1 siècle d'âge). La différence avec les MH, c'est principalement une histoire de contrôle de l'État sur le bâtiment (subventions, etc.) Je considère que si le service de l'inventaire a étudié l'église c'est qu'il y a quelque chose à en dire (suffisamment pour écrire un article dans WP), et si la vocation des VI c'est de mettre en valeur les images les mieux à même de servir… J'ai peut-être une vision utilitariste de la chose, en fait.
Merci pour le compliment. --Coyau (talk) 11:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Mairie du 10e arrondissement de Paris - clocheton.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments lighting is interesting --Mbdortmund 23:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chapelle

Ta chapelle a beaucoup d'aberrations chromatiques : dans le feuillage, la tour de l'arrière plan et l'interface avec le ciel et la chapelle. Si tu tire en RAW du doit pouvoir le corriger. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah oui. J'ai proposé le truc un peu vite, je vais essayer de refaire le panorama. --Coyau (talk) 10:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Chapelle des templiers de Laon, arrière.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments QI for me, in spite of a slightly overexposed sky and small (and thus minor) blue borders around the roof and the building in the right background (visible at full resolution). --Johannes Robalotoff 17:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Église de la Sainte-Trinité de Tinténiac.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

Support Best in scope. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question According to the guideline, does really this church need a scope ? It is only a question, not a decline vote. But the answer must convince me for supporting ! ;)--Jebulon (talk) 13:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The architect (fr:Arthur Regnault) is quite notable in Britany and this church is somehow representative of his work. And the church has been noticed by the French fr:inventaire général du patrimoine culturel (enquête thématique régionale : églises d'Ille-et-Vilaine), see link in category page. --Coyau (talk) 14:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for answering. I saw (and followed) the link, but I'm not convinced... It's a general "inventaire"...--Jebulon (talk) 15:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Then you know better than the ministère de la Culture and its experts what is worth noticing (that is what fr:inventaire général du patrimoine culturel is about). ;) --Coyau (talk) 16:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Surely not ! But I'm not absolutely sure about your definition of the mission of the fr:inventaire général du patrimoine culturel... It' s an "inventaire général" (general inventory), and notices almost all a bit old... Very different of "Monuments Historiques", which this church is not (yet), if I'm not wrong.--Jebulon (talk) 22:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "répertorié à l'inventaire général" is not (and is less important than) "inscrit aux Monuments Historiques", which is not (and is less important than) "classé aux Monuments Historiques". In my humble opinion, this pretty church is not special enough to have its own scope, but I wont oppose here at the moment, lets discuss with other opinions ! Thanks--Jebulon (talk) 22:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question What is your point? You totally lost me here. My definition of the inventaire général du patrimoine culturel? I don't have a personal definition, it is a part of the French Minister of Culture (read the link, please). Why talk about monuments historiques? --Coyau (talk) 08:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support, the church incorporates very old parts. --Ikar.us (talk) 22:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose => promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Théâtre de la Gaîté-Montparnasse.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

★ An image you created has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you created was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Regard Saint-Martin (Paris).

review

Suggest to crop on the right. --Ikar.us (talk) 12:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done myself, IMO nothing relevant is lost. --Ikar.us (talk) 12:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per discussion on the left... -- WhiteWriter ^speaks 12:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was to set up this MVR, with the same crop... Already made. Better IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 14:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ OK for me. --Coyau (talk) 18:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Sorry, "neither the nominator nor the original image author may vote." --Myrabella (talk) 21:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I suggest to add "(Paris)" in the scope. --Myrabella (talk) 21:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I took the liberty of adding the town in the scope and I Support. --Myrabella (talk) 10:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scores: 
1. Regard Saint-Martin 01.jpg: -3
2. Regard Saint-Martin 02.jpg: +3
=>
File:Regard Saint-Martin 01.jpg: Declined.
File:Regard Saint-Martin 02.jpg: Promoted.

--George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Fontevraud, cloître du Grand-Moûtier.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Ok now. --Cayambe 14:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Église Saint-Sulpice de Fougères 01 Faith Hope Charity.jpg

Do you know that the stained-glass windows in that church are 20th-century, or are you guessing? -- AnonMoos (talk) 03:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I took the photo. It is written on it: « Ludovic Alleaume, 1919. », I'll restore the photos in january 2012 when stained-glass windows are PD. --Coyau (talk) 04:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, your deletion comment didn't make that clear, thanks... AnonMoos (talk) 04:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Collégiale de Guérande

Vous avez censuré deux images dans la page Guérande, de la collégiale en 1850 et 1830, et d'autres par-ci par-là.

Les motifs scrupuleux qui vous honorent sont un peu légers : il ne vous serait pas venu à l'esprit que ces images ne sont pas du pompé d'un site internet, (motif indiqué) mais d'extraits de ma propre collection ! Et oui, il arrive que des participants possèdent le document mis en ligne et par altruisme le "donne" à Wikipédia, et donc au monde entier. Ces deux images sont des cartes postales de 1906-1907 qui recopiaient joyeusement sans égard pour de quelconques droits des gravures d'époques (visibles entre autre au Musée de Guérande). D'ailleur, vu les tirages de ces gravures, il doit bien rester plusieurs centaines de ces oeuvres originales. Les musées et bibliothèques qui les possèdent dans leur fond ne peuvent que réclamer des droits sur une reproduction faite par leur soin.

Au titre d'oeuvre collective, ces cartes postales de plus de 70 ans d'age sont libres de droit de facto, éditeur et photographe conjointement n'ayant pas à l'époque de droits spécifiques, (de plus = anonymat du photographe) et pour cause, cela n'existait pas, de plus vu qu'eux même démultipliaient ce qu'ils ne possèdaient pas ... Les Lois ne sont pas rétroactives en France (enfin, sauf quand cela arrange les gouvernants ...).

j'ai mis du temps à vous écrire, mais cela m'a conduit à ne plus mettre d'images, personnelles ou de photographies anciennes, las de restaurer ce qui est souvent un dictat sans dialogue ou un a priori du censeur. VT78 sur wikipedia France

File:Camp_celtique_de_la_Bure_-_Bassin_de_Taranis_-_cartel.jpg

File:Camp_celtique_de_la_Bure_-_Bassin_de_Taranis_-_cartel.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!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ 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） ∙ +/−

Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre gravée

Yo!

Dis-moi l'ami. Toi qui est un spécialiste en cailloux, dans quelle catégorie rangerais-tu ce personnage ? J'avais tout d'abord pensé à un truc asiatique qu'on voit en bord de chemin, mais comme ça n'a finalement pas l'air d'être un Jizo et que je ne sais pas si ça rentre dans la catégorie des sculptures, j'avoue être un peu perdu. Merci de ton aide. Okki (talk) 22:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ça me fait penser à une sculpture naïve qui représente un type avec une cravate, un col dur et un veston. Cela dit, et vu le contexte du jardin d'inspiration japonaise, c'est pas certain que j'aie bon non plus. --Coyau (talk) 23:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Photos de la ville de Strasbourg

Bonjour,

Pourrais-tu transférer vers fr. les photographies suivantes (liberté de panorama) ?

Merci beaucoup. --Dereckson (talk) 10:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Je peux, mais elles doivent être utilisées là-bas : c'est pas trop le but de fr de stocker des images qui ne servent pas, et puis ça ajoute de la maintenance pour rien à ceux qui s'occupent des images. --Coyau (talk) 03:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Hédé - Église Notre-Dame 06.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Informative, Useful, the quality is good enough.--MrPanyGoff 10:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Ancien débit de boisson, rue Jean-Poulmarch 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Nice and useful.--Jebulon 23:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Hédé - Église Notre-Dame 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments --Berthold Werner 17:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Hédé - Église Notre-Dame 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments The crop of the churches wing is a bit unfortunate, but good otherwise.--Jebulon 15:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Fougères, 37 rue Nationale, porte.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good :-) Albertus teolog 22:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

J'ai besoin de ton aide

Bonjour Coyau,

J'aimerais subdiviser l'énorme catégorie-mère Altars in Alsace en Altars in Bas-Rhin et Altars in Haut-Rhin mais j'ai la "flemme", pour ne pas dire la "trouille", de le faire manuellement. Pourrais-tu active un bot de reconnaissance géographique qui classerait automatiquement les fichiers concernés selon la localisation de l'église respective ? Je suppose, j'espère, que cela existe. Merci d'avance, cordialement, --Edelseider (talk) 07:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Il y a des trucs pour croiser les catégories :

http://toolserver.org/~magnus/catscan_rewrite.php?language=commons&project=wikimedia&depth=10&categories=Altars_in_Alsace%0D%0AHaut-Rhin&ns[6]=1&sortby=title&ext_image_data=1

et

http://toolserver.org/~magnus/catscan_rewrite.php?language=commons&project=wikimedia&depth=10&categories=Altars_in_Alsace%0D%0ABas-Rhin&ns[6]=1&sortby=title&ext_image_data=1

(liens à recopier dans la barre d'adresse du navigateur), qui donnent une liste des fichiers. --Coyau (talk) 07:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

STOP, arrête tout ! Tu es en train de classer chaque fichier de la catégorie Isenheim Altarpiece dans la sous-cat altars in haut-rhin, alors que la cat mère y est déjà ! C'est inutile !--Edelseider (talk) 12:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Fougères, 32 rue Nationale, porte.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments OK --Mbdortmund 04:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Estuaire de la Gironde - pêche au carrelet 02.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Estuaire de la Gironde - pêche au carrelet 02.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 12:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Barrière d'Enfer (Paris).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

Encore du gros boulot

...plus que la dernière fois, je pense, mais puisque tu maîtrises si admirablement les bots... Voilà, c'est la catégorie Church interiors in Alsace qu'il faudrait subdiviser en Church interiors in Bas-Rhin et Church interiors in Haut-Rhin. Tu remarqueras que cette catégorie compte un nombre appréciable de sous-catégories du même type, à savoir : Baroque church interiors in Alsace, Gothic church interiors in Alsace, Gothic revival church interiors in Alsace, Romanesque church interiors in Alsace et Romanesque revival church interiors in Alsace et qu'il vaudrait mieux ne pas se mélanger les pinceaux... Si tu avais un moment pour faire cela à tête reposée, je t'en serais infiniment reconnaissant. Bonne soirée et merci d'avance, bien cordialement, --Edelseider (talk) 18:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merci !--Edelseider (talk) 21:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thouars

Bonjour Coyau. Je reconnais juste la maison à colombages située au début de la rue Bigot (probablement au n° 2), à l'angle de la rue Sauge (celle où sont garées les voitures). Père Igor (talk) 09:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hôtel de Francheville 03 trompillon.jpg

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 08:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Monument français

Bonjour,

Pourrais-tu regarder qui est le sculpteur de File:MAM d'Ouveillan de René Iché.jpg et sa date de décès, et le cas échéant transférer vers fr. ? --Dereckson (talk) 13:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1954. Il n'y a pas d'exception pour les sculptures « fair use », donc je ne transfère pas. --Coyau (talk) 22:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ha oui juste ce n'est pas un bâtiment, bon ben je supprime. --Dereckson (talk) 10:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

template:IGESPAR

Salut, tu pourrais me faire un bouton dont tu as le secret (comme pour les MH mais pour ce modèle en titre... Après c'est domage de ne pas les retrouver sur vector... mais bon chaque choses en son temps... Otourly (talk) 16:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

C'est moi ou il n'existe pas? Otourly (talk) 04:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Je n'ai pas l'option dans les préférences. Otourly (talk) 07:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Père Lachaise

J'ai commencé à rajouter des liens facilitant la navigation entre les divisions (en m'inspirant de ce qui a été fait pour le Louvre et le British museum). Est-ce qu'un bot pourrait faire ce boulot fastidieux ? Il y a tout de même 97 divisions... ~Pyb (talk) 18:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Je cherche une catégorie pour des photos d'illustration d'articles

Bonjour, j'ai posé cette question sur le bistro et on me conseille de venir te voir. Je cherche s'il existe une catégorie pour signaler des photos "généralistes" qui permettent d'illustrer un thème ou un article (de wikinews par exemple). Par exemple cette photo :

Le problème étant qu'elle a été notée comme "low quality" par une personne sans doute bien intentionnée qui n'a pas compris l'usage que je voyais pour cette photo. Merci d'avance. Lionel Allorge (talk) 20:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

En passant, j'ai revert la categorisation en blurred image, étant donné que c'est une catégorie de maintenance. Esby (talk) 23:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour Lionel,
Tu cherches les catégories pour ranger les stock photos (en fr) (comme il y a des stock footage au cinéma), ce genre de photos qui se vend par lots de mille.
Commons n'est pas très développé pour tout ce qui n'est pas de la photo scientifico-démonstrative, j'essaye de faire des photos de textures (pour la 3D) de temps en temps, mais ce genre de choses ne semble pas être une priorité de Commons. Je crée Category:Stock photographies.
--Coyau (talk) 15:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merci pour la catégorie. Lionel Allorge (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erreur logo MH

Le dessin que vous avez réalisé du logo MH est superbe, mais il comporte une erreur : le labyrinthe de Reims et le logo des monuments historiques qu'il a inspiré comportent un seul chemin ; or sur votre dessin, vers l'angle gauche pour celui qui regarde le logo, il y a un carrefour qui offre deux possibilités (celle de gauche pour celui qui suit le chemin devrait être fermée). Suivez le chemin et vous verrez ! Je l'ai signalé sur les fichiers concernés de Wikimédia Commons. Baronnet (talk) 15:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Monument à Goethe (Strasbourg) 13.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support QI & Useful --Archaeodontosaurus 10:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Gare de Pleslin - Plouër 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments good --George Chernilevsky 13:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Paris, Gare de l'Est, Strasbourg (statue) et drapeau russe.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments IMO, image needs to be rotated CCW to correct tilt. --Jovianeye 04:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done --Coyau 04:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good now. --Jovianeye 04:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Galerie Véro-Dodat 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support --Carschten 19:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Galerie Véro-Dodat 04.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support this one too. --Jebulon 10:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Envoi des quelques fichiers sur Wikipedia

Bonjour, Esby m'a dit à Commons:Bistro que tu avais un bot qui pouvait envoyer sur Wikipédia quelques fichiers qui posaient des problèmes. Si tu peux faire ça pour File:Arc André-Citroën.jpg et sans doute quelques fichiers par le même utilisateur, ce serait super. --Zolo (talk) 17:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Fontaine Saint-Sulpice.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Théâtre de la Renaissance 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good ! --M0tty 09:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Camp celtique de la Bure - stèle du maître de forge.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good. --Cayambe 13:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Porte, 8 rue Jean-Poulmarch (Paris).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments QI, good malgré un peu de CA bleu en haut et le long des lattes des volets.--Jebulon 16:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done CA fixed (and metadata added, btw). --Coyau 17:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Église de Saint-André-d'Hébertot.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Maison des Arts de Malakoff, détail 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good technical quality. Not very spectacular maybe, but interesting architectural element, and useful picture.--Jebulon 18:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Cathedrale de Viviers - voute 3e travee.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Question The right side is symmetrical, the left not. Can you rotate it a tiny little bit ccw? -- H005 17:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done Better ? --Coyau 18:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! -- H005 08:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Xaffévillers église 08 beffroi.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Cayambe 16:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Palais Rohan face au quai des Bateliers, Strasbourg.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Mbdortmund 01:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Gare de l'Est, Paris - Strasbourg, Seine, Rhin.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Very good -- George Chernilevsky 21:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Balai

Salut. Je veins de m'apercevoir qu'une photo pas très libre s'était glissé dans un import massif : File:Abbaye du Voeu, Cherbourg 30.JPG. Peux-tu la supprimer ? Merci. HaguardDuNord (talk) 23:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Grille royale de Versailles.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Beautiful light and colors, sharp and intersting composition --Croucrou 08:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:19th_century_stained_glass_windows

Category discussion notification

Category:19th_century_stained_glass_windows has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.
In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:20th_century_stained_glass_windows

Category discussion notification

Category:20th_century_stained_glass_windows has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.
In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

vitraux de la cathédrale de coutance

Salut,
Dcrochet voulait savoir pourquoi l'image des vitraux qu'il avait réalisé a été effacée.
file:Cathédrale_de_Coutance_2009-07-31_023.JPG
D'après lui, les vitraux datent du XV° siècle, ils ont juste fait l'objet d'une restauration.
Esby (talk) 14:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Les vitraux du XVe que je connais ne ressemblent pas à ça. Pour moi, c'est de la seconde moitié XXe à voir la photo. Cela dit, on peut passer en DR pour prendre le temps de la réflexion. --Coyau (talk) 14:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oui, je ne sais plus si la photo représente le vitrail en bout du transept (le jugement dernier) ou si elle représente l'un des vitraux qui bordent ce transept. Dans ce dernier cas, je n'ai pas d'information sur l'année de création. Crochet.david (talk) 14:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Je restaure pour que tu puisse vérifier. (en fait, j'ai vidé la Category:Sylvie Gaudin, morte en 1994). --Coyau (talk) 14:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oui, je pensais bien que ce n'était pas le grand vitrail du fond. Certes, c'est très ressemblant à de la peinture sur verre. Et comme je n'ai jamais chercher qui en était l'auteur et que je le découvre maintenant, il n'y a aucun souci à sa suppression temporaire pendant 62 ans. Crochet.david (talk)

Ça peut arriver à tout le monde. Tiens, je viens de lancer les catégories de vitraux par siècle, si ça t'amuse de faire un peu de rangement. --Coyau (talk) 14:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour

Hello, I've noticed your wonderful photo of Louis XIV, and dared to make background a bit different. I hope you aren't offended, with best regards and great respect, --G eorge, 18:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. It's cool, that's why we use free licences! I just removed information about the background (irrelevant with black mask) and added your name in the file description. Regards, --Coyau (talk) 19:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Château de Versailles, galerie des glaces, buste d'empereur romain 04 (Auguste).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Head not absolutely sharp, but good. --Jebulon 11:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Château de Versailles, galerie des glaces, buste d'empereur romain 03 (Titus).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Not perfectly sharp, but good--Jebulon 11:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Visite encadrée des Appartements de la Reine

Bonjour !

Tu as fait part de ton intérêt pour une visite encadrée des Appartements de la Reine, afin de prendre des photos et des notes. Cette opération se déroulerait un mercredi. Je fais le tour des gens intéressés pour voir les dates de disponibilité de chacun.

Es-tu toujours de la partie ? Si oui, merci de me préciser tes disponibilités.

A bientôt, Trizek ^{here or on fr:wp} 16:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour, la date du 25 mai est arrêtée pour la séance photo au château, concernant les petits appartements de la Reine. J’aurai donc besoin de ta confirmation, sachant que la séance aurait lieu de 14h à 17h. Il me faut également tes noms et prénoms, que tu peux me transmettre par mail.

Pour cette séance, il est possible d'avoir un pied photo. Les appartements sont sombres et très étroits.

Merci de ton retour, afin que je mette les choses en place !

A bientôt, Trizek ^{here or on fr:wp} 14:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS : l'article WP sur la statue de Louis XIV de Le Bernin va sans doute se prendre un grand ravalement de façade dans les jours à venir. A surveiller !

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Château de Versailles, galerie des glaces, buste d'empereur romain 05 (Néron ?).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good, like the others--Jebulon 09:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Château de Versailles, galerie des glaces, buste d'empereur romain 08.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good --Jebulon 09:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Château de Versailles, salon de la paix, buste d'empereur romain (Commode).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Very good --Jebulon 14:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Château de Versailles, salon de la paix, buste d'empereur romain (Claude).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Very good --Jebulon 14:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Château de Versailles, cour royale, buste de Lucius Verus, Vdse 144 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Niabot 11:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Château de Versailles, salon de Diane, buste de Louis XIV, Bernin (1665) 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Cayambe 21:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Coyau, as you have no admin-userbox on your userpage you are not recognizable to other users as an administrator and you are also missing from Category:Commons administrators. Could you please either add the userbox or the cat. Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 19:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strasbourg en particulier ou Alsace en général

Bonjour Coyau,

aurais-tu d'autres photos de cette ville ou de cette région à téléverser ?

Cordialement,

--Edelseider (talk) 17:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Il doit m'en rester un ou deux paquet, je remonte ça de 3 crans dans ma todo list. --Coyau (talk) 03:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Super. Pour la catégorisation, je m'en charge :-). Cordialement, --Edelseider (talk) 08:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

J'ai encore des trucs de Versailles à finir, et je te fais signe quand j'uploade l'Alsace (si je me souviens bien, il doit me rester un peu de Strasbourg et un peu de route des vins). --Coyau (talk) 08:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

N'oublie pas de me faire signe ! :-) --Edelseider (talk) 19:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promis. --Coyau (talk) 19:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Château de Versailles, cour royale, buste de Romain, Vdse 143 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments {{{3}}}

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Parterre de Latone.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Parc de Versailles, Bassin de Flore, Jean-Baptiste Tuby (1672-79) 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Mbdortmund 00:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Parc de Versailles, Bosquet du Dauphin, Bassin du Dauphin 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Ok. --Jovianeye 21:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Catégorie appropriée

Bonjour Coyau. Tu viens de modifier la category:Moats in France en remplaçant la category:Landscape architecture in France par category:Garden features and elements in France [5]. Or, sur les 28 sous-catégories recensées dans category:Moats by country, seule la category:Moats in the United States reprend le même principe. À mon avis, les fossés ou douves ne sont pas tous des éléments de jardins. Je souhaite que tu reviennes à la catégorie initiale. Père Igor (talk) 17:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comme tu veux. Je viens juste de créer Category:Garden features and elements in France et je la peuplais un peu (j'ai peut-être pris le mauvais modèle). --Coyau (talk) 17:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour Coyau. Je viens d'en retirer les "grottoes" qui ne sont pas toutes des grottes ornementales de jardin. Cela n'empêche pas de créer Category:Ornamental grottoes of France si tu le juges utile. Cdlt, Jack ma (talk) 09:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Parfait. :) --Coyau (talk) 09:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Parc de Versailles, Bosquet de la colonnade, Enlèvement de Proserpine par Pluton, François Girardon 05.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments very good composition --Mbdortmund 19:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Parc de Versailles, Bassin de Flore, Jean-Baptiste Tuby (1672-79) 05.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Meets the criteria, imo.--MrPanyGoff 18:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Bosquet de l'Encelade.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Bosquet de la Colonnade.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Parc de Versailles, Bosquet des Dômes, Arion, Jean-Melchior Raon 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments OK --Mbdortmund 22:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Parc de Versailles, Bosquet de la colonnade, Enlèvement de Proserpine par Pluton, François Girardon 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good. --Cayambe 16:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Parc de Versailles, Bassin de Flore, Jean-Baptiste Tuby (1672-79) 07.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Parc de Versailles, Bassin de Flore, Jean-Baptiste Tuby (1672-79) 07.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 13:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Parc de Versailles, demi-lune du bassin d'Apollon, Jupiter, Jean-Jacques Clérion 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Andrei Stroe 07:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Parc de Versailles, demi-lune du bassin d'Apollon, Aristée et Protée, Sébastien Slodtz 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Outstanding detail, nice colours and lighting --Saffron Blaze 12:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Église Sainte-Foy de Chartres, façade occidentale.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments {{{3}}}

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Parc de Versailles, demi-lune du bassin d'Apollon, Junon, Jean-Jacques Clérion 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Cayambe 12:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Château de Versailles, cour de marbre, buste d'empereur romain, Vdse 103 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Excellent detail and lighting. --Saffron Blaze 23:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Château de Versailles, cour de marbre, buste d'empereur romain, Vdse 104 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Very good to me--Lmbuga 21:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Parc de Versailles, Bosquet de l'Encelade, bassin 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Beautiful work, lovely picture --Saffron Blaze 20:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you...

...for moving the QI candidate to the right section. :) --Pilettes (talk) 21:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. :) --Coyau (talk) 21:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Parc de Versailles, Bosquet de l'Encelade, bassin 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support Small overexposed areas but QI for me --Archaeodontosaurus 17:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Château de Versailles, cour de marbre, buste d'Auguste âgé, Vdse 108 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality --Ximonic 17:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Chartres, Maison 15 place du Général-de-Gaulle 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Raghith 18:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Château de Versailles, cour de marbre, buste de jeune satyre, Vdse 109 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Saffron Blaze 21:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Château de Versailles, cour de marbre, buste de dame romaine, Vdse 94 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Nice detail here. Sharp. --Saffron Blaze 21:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Projection de mercator et panorama 360x180

Salut, je suis tombé sur File:Château de Versailles, petit appartement de la reine, 1er étage, bibliothèque, pano.jpg. C'est bien mais le hic est que le panoramaviewer [6] ne supporte que l'équi-rectangulaire et le cylindrique, ca déforme donc les zones hautes. Esby (talk) 13:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

J'ai vu. Je vais faire une autre sortie pour le panoramaviewer (dès que j'ai fini les 4 faces en rectilinéaire). --Coyau (talk) 13:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Biscuit de la reine

Salut, mes compliments pour ton biscuit de Sèvres "La nourrice". J'ai annoté sur la photo une petite erreur de détourage sur la tête de la nourrice. Tant qu'on y est jette aussi un oeil au nez de la jeune fille debout, le découpage me parait peu flatteur pour l'appendice.
Je trouve tes différentes prises de la bibliothèque absolument géniales, je suis impressionné.
As-tu par hasard les références et/ou la description du biscuit central, celui de la dame à sa coiffeuse ? J'ai fait la même chose que toi, en moins bien et en moindre résolution, mais je vais le publier quand même et le proposer en QI.
Bien cordialement,--Jebulon (talk) 23:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Salut,

Je regarde le détourage demain, promis.

Merci, la prise de vue m'a pris plus d'une demi-heure (pas le genre de chose que je fais tous les jours), plus 2 jours de bricolage pour les 360 (c'est rigolo) et encore deux jours pour les quatre faces (un peu plus « descriptives »), tout ça pour m'apercevoir que j'avais mal fait les réglages et que les zones au soleil sont brûlées (le coup prochain je m'y prendrai différemment).

J'ai trouvé les références de la nourrice tout à fait par hasard dans mon petit Larousse (à l'entrée biscuit), pour les autres je n'en ai aucune idée, j'ai demandé à Trizek s'il pouvait trouver ça (j'ai une photo de chaque en attente d'identification). Je te fais confiance pour les passages en QI, tu connais la maison et tu fais de bonnes photos (et je suis curieux de voir ce que tu as tiré des biscuits).

Cordialement, Coyau (talk) 23:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Salut.
Ne te casse pas la tête, j'ai trouvé. Il s'agit donc d'un "surtout de table" composé des trois pièces (La Nourrice, la Toilette et le Déjeuner), qu'il ne faut pas séparer (ça fera un très joli "set"). Il doit y avoir eu plusieurs tirages, celui que je te présente en lien montre un moulin-jouet ayant perdu ses ailes, dirait-on, alors que le nôtre les a . Il semble porter le numéro 4, alors que celui que nous avons vu porte le n°9, sauf erreur. L'auteur en est Josse-François-Joseph Leriche d'après Boizot. Il y a un n° d'inventaire, mais à Fontainebleau pas à Versailles. Ce n'est pas encore très clair, mais on progresse. Pour ma part, je n'ai porté attention qu'à celui du milieu, le plus grand, faute de temps dans la pièce. Je le publierai donc tel que je l'ai détouré hier soir, même si la comparaison est largement en ta faveur. Mais si tu les as tous les trois, ça promet d'être très intéressant. Cordialement, --Jebulon (talk) 14:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tu es un héros.

Je lis un 8 ici. On devrait pouvoir faire une catégorie pour mettre tout ça dedans. --Coyau (talk) 14:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Je vois que tu as placé ta photo dans l'article "Louis Boizot", tu as raison et tort: regarde plus bas dans l'article, notre "trilogie" par Leriche est évoquée...--Jebulon (talk) 14:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ça vaut une catégorie en effet, on y mettrait aussi ta cheminée, puisqu'on y voit les trois éléments ! Je te laisse oeuvrer à cet égard, tu as plus d'images que moi à y placer.--Jebulon (talk) 14:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hop, là ! Trouvé les numéros d'inventaire à Versailles : [7], [8] et [9]. --Coyau (talk) 15:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Et la catégorie avec un nom à rallonge pas très joli (mais on peut toujours en changer), mais avec la synthèse de tout ce que j'ai trouvé. --Coyau (talk) 15:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yessss! C'est toi le héros !--Jebulon (talk) 21:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ça doit être l'intelligence de groupe, ou un truc du genre, alors. :D --Coyau (talk) 21:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ayé ! Merci pour tout ! Je me méfie de l'intelligence de groupe, ça peut rapidement devenir la c...rie de groupe (genre Nuremberg 1936, stade du Heysel etc...). Enfin bref, on a bien bossé quand même !--Jebulon (talk) 21:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Certes, ouh là, oui, vu comme ça… j'étais dans un monde de biscuits. Belle photo, soit dit en passant, et meilleur point de vue que moi. --Coyau (talk) 21:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon, j'étais un peu rude... Je ne suis pas sûr que le point de vue soit parfait, on ne voit pas le mec qui drague la nana en essayant de mater son décolleté. Mais c'est décidément charmant. Merci de ton vote, à propos !--Jebulon (talk) 08:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

C'est pas grave. Voila, j'ai détouré l'autre, on a un jeu complet sur fond noir.
Je m'aperçois que tu as appelé le fichier « déjeuner » au lieu de « toilette », on peut renommer. --Coyau (talk) 13:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

M...! Quel f... C... je fais! B...l ! C'est pas qu'on "peut" renommer, c'est qu'on "doit" !--Jebulon (talk) 16:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done (c'était un euphémisme). --Coyau (talk) 16:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re-Identification

À propos des chaises, c'est marrant, j'allais te poser la même question.... Looool !
Blague à part, non, je n'ai rien, justement, et ça m'embête.--Jebulon (talk) 21:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

J'ai mis un mot sur WP aussi. --Coyau (talk) 21:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merci pour le cadeau, mais je n'arrive pas à dénouer le ruban (en d'autre termes, le lien ne fonctionne pas...)
ça a intérêt à être un beau cadeau, car je suis furieux contre toi : ma Marie-Thérèse à moi est certes pas mal, mais bien moins réussie que la tienne. Je boude, et ne la publie donc pas.
~~Tant qu'on y est, as-tu quelque chose pour identifier ça ? Pas moyen. Je n'ai rien que ce qui figurait sur un cartel "de complaisance", et le chat est maigre...~~--Jebulon (talk) 20:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Trouvé. Pas si "Riesener" que ça, mais intéressant. Merci pour le "cadeau", j'ai pu le déchiffrer. J'ai fait des princesses et un archiduc, aidé par la RMN. J'ai pompé allègrement ton cartel pour Marie-Thérèse et je l'ai adapté. Toujours rien sur les chaises ?--Jebulon (talk) 14:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Château de Versailles, petit appartement de la reine (2e étage), salle à manger, La Nourrice, Josse-François-Joseph Leriche d'ap. Louis Boizot 02-black bg.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support QI & Useful --Archaeodontosaurus 17:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Antoine Augustin

Salut.
Je me suis permis une petite correction sur la page WP de St Augustin.
En y insérant ton tableau (je l'ai aussi, je vais voir si je peux mieux faire), tu y parlais en légende de la "conversion de St Antoine", j'ai donc rendu à Augustin ce qui lui appartenait.
Y'a pourtant pas de moquette à fumer, dans les petits appartements.
'comprends pas...
Cordialement,--Jebulon (talk) 23:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PS: j'ai rajouté la référence RMN dans ton cartel, que j'ai pompé, mutatis mutandis.
PPS:Ta version est meilleure que la mienne.

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Château de Versailles, appartements du Dauphin et de la Dauphine, chambre du Dauphin, buste de Louis XVI, Augustin Pajou (1779) 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments A bit noisy at high resolution, but good.--Jebulon 23:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boiserie

Bonjour Coyau, Lors de ta plongée dans la photothèque de la RMN, aurais-tu rencontré cette image ? En effet, la description de l'image la donne comme boiserie Martin faite vers 1739, et cette vue est rattachée au § "Marie Leszczyńska" de l'article sur le petit appartement de la reine dans fr:WP ("La deuxième phase fut témoin des réaménagements importants dans la petite galerie avec l’installation des boiseries en vernis Martin."). Problème, la même image est légendée "Boiserie provenant d'un cabinet de Marie-Josèphe de Saxe", que Marie-Antoinette aurait fait remonter dans l'ancien cabinet des Poètes, dans les pages que nous a passées Trizek (image n° 82). Je voudrais donc avoir si les deux sont compatibles et cohérents :-) --Myrabella (talk) 07:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Je n'en sais pas plus que toi. En cherchant le vernis Martin à Versailles, on tombe sur ça.

En 1739, Marie Leszczyńska a 36 ans et Marie-Josèphe de Saxe a 8 ans… Je dirais que c'est ou bien 1739 et Marie Leszczyńska ou bien Marie-Josèphe de Saxe et Marie-Antoinette. Tout le monde est d'accord pour dire que c'est du vernis Martin XVIIIe s. Je suis un peu court en doc sur le XVIIIe, il va falloir que je comble mes lacunes.

Cette image est utilisée sur en:WP depuis juillet 2008, l'article français est la traduction de 2010 par la même personne (plusieurs comptes bannis récemment sur fr:WP). --Coyau (talk) 14:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC) J'ai bien peur que ça n'aide pas beaucoup...[reply]

Merci pour la recherche. Le site du domaine de Versailles date ces boiseries des années 1750 et indique qu'elles "proviennent d’un arrière-cabinet de l’appartement de Marie-Josèphe de Saxe situé au rez-de-chaussée ; c’est Marie-Antoinette elle-même qui fit remonter ce décor créé pour sa belle-mère", sur cette page. L'autre mention n'étant pas sourcée, je corrigerai l'article (et la description de l'image) en ce sens. PS: j'ai suivi l'affaire sur fr:WP... --Myrabella (talk) 15:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Parfait, alors. --Coyau (talk) 15:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Château de Versailles, appartements du Dauphin et de la Dauphine, chambre du Dauphin, buste de Louis XVI, Augustin Pajou (1779) 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Q Itou, IMO.--Jebulon 08:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Château de Versailles, appartements du Dauphin et de la Dauphine, salle des gardes, Nature morte au buste de l'Afrique, Jean-Baptiste Oudry, 1722.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support QI & Useful --Archaeodontosaurus 19:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Porto_2006_-_gato.jpg

File:Porto_2006_-_gato.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!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ 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） ∙ +/−

Petrus Adamus (talk) 08:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Parc de Versailles, Bassin du Miroir, jets d'eau 05.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. Harrison49 01:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]