User talk:Coyau/4

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

Welcome to commons Coyau. What better way than starting off with a Quality Image promotion could there be? :-) --QICbot (talk) 12:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Quality Image Promotion

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Père-Lachaise - Division 11 - Le Blanc 10.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 -- MJJR 22:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Père-Lachaise - Division 11 - Gourlot 18.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. --Moonik 17:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Père-Lachaise - Division 11 - Pierre de Lucy Fossarieu 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 Very Good. --Rjcastillo 17:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Musique interdite 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 The sky could be a bit darker imo, but QI. --JLPC 18:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GIF à supprimer

[edit]

Hello.

Veux-tu bien supprimer cette vidéo File:Clip0001 00 00 00-00 00 25.gif s'il te plait ? J'en suis le créateur et je l'ai ratée (trop petite). --Orikrin1998 18:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Fait. Au passage, essaye de donner un titre qui donne une idée de ce qu'il y a dans le fichier. --Coyau (talk) 19:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merci.
OK pour le titre, mais cette image était un fichier-test de toutes façons.
Peux-tu supprimer ça aussi (il parait que c'est un copyvio, mais je n'ai pas fait exprès). Je voulais te le demander hier mais j'ai eu une coupure internet. --Orikrin1998 10:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of the Year voting round 1 open

[edit]

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2012 Picture of the Year competition is now open. We're interested in your opinion as to which images qualify to be the Picture of the Year for 2012. Voting is open to established Wikimedia users who meet the following criteria:

  1. Users must have an account, at any Wikimedia project, which was registered before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC].
  2. This user account must have more than 75 edits on any single Wikimedia project before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC]. Please check your account eligibility at the POTY 2012 Contest Eligibility tool.
  3. Users must vote with an account meeting the above requirements either on Commons or another SUL-related Wikimedia project (for other Wikimedia projects, the account must be attached to the user's Commons account through SUL).

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. From professional animal and plant shots to breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historically relevant images, images portraying the world's best architecture, maps, emblems, diagrams created with the most modern technology, and impressive human portraits, Commons features pictures of all flavors.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topic categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you can vote for as many images as you like. The first round category winners and the top ten overall will then make it to the final. In the final round, when a limited number of images are left, you must decide on the one image that you want to become the Picture of the Year.

To see the candidate images just go to the POTY 2012 page on Wikimedia Commons

Wikimedia Commons celebrates our featured images of 2012 with this contest. Your votes decide the Picture of the Year, so remember to vote in the first round by January 30, 2013.

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

Delivered by Orbot1 (talk) at 09:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC) - you are receiving this message because you voted last year[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Père-Lachaise - Division 8 - Pierre-Jules Cavelier 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 quality. --Poco a poco 12:34, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your photos of Lactaire délicieux

[edit]

Hallo Coyau, in my opinion your photos of Lactaire délicieux vert (1-34) show Lactarius deterrimus. L. deterrimus grows with spuce (Picea abies) and L. deliciosus grows with pine (Pinus spec.). The cap of L. deliciosus is zoned, while that of L. deterrimus (almost) azoned. The cap of L. deterrimus turns green when the fruitbody is old or after a frosty night. Kind regards --Thkgk (talk) 10:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! 8 mm Kodak safety film reel 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 Very nice --Poco a poco 18:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Santon, Ravi 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. --Selbymay 09:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

[edit]
Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, 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） ∙ +/−

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, -mattbuck (Talk) 17:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Santon, chamelier 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 OK, but possibly a copyvio. --Mattbuck 19:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Place Martin-Nadaud (Paris), numéro 3 sous la neige 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. --JLPC 18:13, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Jardin naturel (Paris) sous la neige 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 Minor CA but QI --Poco a poco 18:38, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Boulevard de Ménilmontant (Paris), arceaux à vélo sous la neige 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 Well, it convinced me --Poco a poco 18:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Demande de déblocage

[edit]

J’ai découvert avec une certaine stupéfaction, pour ne pas dire une stupéfaction certaine, que j’ai été bloqué un mois (pas moins !) et sans aucun avertissement par le dénommé Dereckson qui n’a pas supporté que je corrige récemment une faute stupide mais très répandue - « en Avignon » au lieu de « à Avignon » - faute tellement répandue qu’il se trouve même des gens pour croire que « en Avignon » est la seule tournure correcte.

Il justifie mon blocage par des reproches qui m’ont été adressés en 2010 sur Wikipédia en français. Sans doute faudrait-il lui rappeler que nous sommes en 2013. De plus, depuis 2010, j’ai tenu compte des critiques de l’époque, ce qui explique qu’il n’y en a plus eu depuis.

Il affirme que ma ma page de discussion sur Wikipedia en français comporte plusieurs plaintes à propos de ce en Avignon / à Avignon. Il lui aurait suffi de lire attentivement les « plaintes » pour constater que ce n’étaient pas des plaintes mais des interrogations sur le motif de la correction ; qu’après explication mes interlocuteurs avaient admis que j’avais raison ; que si effectivement, il y a eu un litige avec un autre utilisateur, c’est parce que j’avais corrigé plusieurs « en Avignon » corrects (car cette tournure n’est pas forcément incorrecte) et qu’après discussion, nous étions tombés d’accord.

Il me reproche mon pseudo : attaque ad hominem.

Je me serais engagé dans une guerre d’édition : ([e.g. http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Promo_008.jpg&action=history]). Si Dereckson avait lu l’historique de l’article, il aurait constaté qu’au contraire, quand je me suis rendu compte que cela tournait à la guerre d’édition, j’y ai mis fin en donnant des explications complètes, à la fois sur la page de discussion de l’article en cause, et sur la page de discussion de mon interlocuteur, explications qui ont fait que celui-ci a cessé de « corriger » mes corrections.

Sur ma manière de répondre, voir ci-dessus.

Je ne prendrais pas en compte les conseils qui me sont donnés. Dereckson peut-il citer les conseils qui m’ont été donnés ? Hormis le message d’accueil, le message de Dereckson, suite au blocage, est le premier que je reçois !

Enfin, j’inonderais les pages de discussion avec des arguments « sans aucun sens ». Je vous suggère donc de lire une seule d’entre elles (toutes les autres sont identiques) afin de vous faire votre propre idée sur ces « non-sense arguments ».

Pour toutes ces raison, et devant l’inanité des motifs de mon blocage, je demande mon déblocage. Mon adresse IP actuelle est 84.246.217.25 et mon identifiant de blocage est 117876. (La procédure veut que l’on précise ces indications dans toutes les requêtes de déblocage.) Je vous remercie par avance.

User:Orthomaniaque

Message adressé aux administrateurs dont la langue maternelle est le français.

PS : Sur la page d’explication qui s’ouvre lorsque l’on veut modifier un article, la procédure de demande de déblocage est indiquée : il faut s’adresser à un administrateur. Et là, surprise : un utilisateur bloqué ne pouvant modifier une page de discussion, il ne peut donc pas demander son déblocage ! C’est pourquoi j’adresse ma demande sous IP, depuis mon téléphone.

Pour le cas où Dereckson, piquerait une nouvelle crise en voyant une nouvelle correction de faute d’orthographe effectuée par moi, pouvez-vous m’indiquer comment il faut s’y prendre pour demander un déblocage ?

Quality Image Promotion

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Vélo dans la neige 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 Nice graphic composition. --Jastrow 21:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Père-Lachaise - porte de la Réunion 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. --Moroder 18:32, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Spinning hardboiled and raw eggs 01.ogg, 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 Really nice --Pleclown 21:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Moka Nova Espress fondo elettrico 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 for me --Pleclown 21:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Moka Nova Espress fondo elettrico 26.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 for me --Pleclown 21:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Spinning hardboiled egg 01.ogg, 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. --Pleclown 20:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Denoyauteur 05 - 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. --Berthold Werner 07:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Casse-noix ouvre-bouteille 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. --JLPC 18:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Denoyauteur 04 - 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  Support OK --A.Savin 16:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Casse-noix inox 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 Good quality. --Poco a poco 17:20, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Casse-noix inox 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 --Rjcastillo 15:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Casse-noix ouvre-bouteille 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  Support OK --A.Savin 16:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Adaptateur électrique multiprise CEE 7 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 Good quality. --Pleclown 12:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Moules à beignet fonte d'aluminium 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. --Nino Verde 08:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Moules à beignet fonte d'aluminium 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 Nice. --Selbymay 08:20, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Moules à beignet fonte d'aluminium 14.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. --Nino Verde 08:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Bonjour.

J'aimerais savoir si tu pourrais me renseigner sur un projet qui date de plusieurs années appelé Sisterlinks project. Un utilisateur anonyme du Wiktionnaire en français avait ajouté sur de nombreuses pages le modèle sisterlinks avec un lien vers Template talk:Sisterlinks, qui été supprimé depuis.

J'aimerais savoir ; as-tu eu vent de ce projet ? Saurais-tu m'indiquer s'il est encore valable ? Sinon, pourrais-tu m'indiquer quelqu'un de compétent qui pourrait m'informer là-dessus ?

Merci d'avance. Cordialement, Automatik (talk) 22:18, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour,
Jamais entendu parler de ce projet, mais il semble rester une sous-page utilisateur dessus User:HenkvD/Sisterproject et une catégorie Commons:SisterProjects (redirigée).
Cordialement, --Coyau (talk) 14:10, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merci pour ta réponse :)
Cordialement, Automatik (talk) 16:33, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Utilisation image

[edit]

Bonjour, je suis un archéologue italien et je dois publier sur "Archelogia Classica" (revue specialisée)un article sur la statue de la Pudicité qui est à Versailles. Je voudrais utiliser votre photo. Est il possible? Dans le cas, comment puis je vous citer? Merci Salutations distinguées Sandro Lorenzatti

Bonjour,
C'est possible, il suffit d'indiquer pour la photo « photo : Coyau / Wikimedia Commons / CC-BY-SA-3.0 ».
Cordialement, --Coyau (talk) 16:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Merci beaucoup! Cordialement SL

Quality Image Promotion

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Père-Lachaise - Division 65 - Durand-Fornas 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 quality. --Moonik 08:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jardin naturel (Paris)

[edit]

Bonsoir Coyau. Juste deux mots au sujet de "Jardin naturel (Paris)" où Mattbuck voit des CAs. Ils sont vraiment très légers. J'ai d'ailleurs dû importer ton fichier pour les découvrir (non sans bien chercher) sur les pieds dudit banc et dans une partie des broussailles. Je les ai supprimés avec un logiciel gratuit que tu connais peut-être : Rawtherapee. Si tu ne le connais pas, je te le signale car il est facile à utiliser sur ce plan-là et, je crois, plus efficace que le plugin de Gimp. -- Bien cordialement. --JLPC (talk) 21:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Melitta_coffemakers

[edit]
Category discussion warning

Category:Melitta_coffemakers 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 ∙ +/−

Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Père-Lachaise - Division 65 - Durand-Fornas 12.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 and very good caption(s). --JLPC 16:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Père-Lachaise - Division 65 - Durand-Fornas 10.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 for me. --PierreSelim 17:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Père-Lachaise - Division 70 - Moris 09.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. --Poco a poco 21:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Père-Lachaise - Division 65 - Ferko Patikarus, Daignas 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 Good quality. --Jastrow 07:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Père-Lachaise - Division 65 - Ferko Patikarus, Daignas 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 Good quality. --Berthold Werner 08:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Père-Lachaise - Division 65 - Ferko Patikarus, Daignas 09.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. --Jastrow 09:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)  Question QI for me but what are the white lines over the face? There is a problem with the geotag and in the description I'd suggest to add "Detail"--Moroder 09:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC) I don't see any white line? {{Location}} is affected by a bug, see COM:AN#Broken location template. --Jastrow 09:47, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The marble is dirty with alguae, moss, lichen, black crust, etc., but it is clean (or almost) by places, may be that's the white lines? I added something in the description. --Coyau 15:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Spider web, most likely. --Coyau 17:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC) Comment What I suspected. Best regards --Moroder 17:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Jardin naturel (Paris) sous la neige 14.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 CA needs fixing. Mattbuck 02:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC) ✓ Done. --Coyau 12:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit better but still noticable. Mattbuck 22:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC) Can't see it. I'm sorry. --Coyau 10:44, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Notes added. Mattbuck 10:32, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Still can't see it. --Coyau 22:28, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed I could see and removed the CAs.--Hic et nunc 08:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Mattbuck 11:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Père-Lachaise - Division 48 - Souvestre 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. --Poco a poco 20:49, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Père-Lachaise - Division 48 - Balzac 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 QI for me. --Kadellar 16:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Père-Lachaise - Division 70 - Moris 21.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}}}

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Père-Lachaise - Division 70 - Moris 22.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. --JDP90 08:27, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Demande de déblocage puis de suppression de compte

[edit]

Bonjour,

Suite à une requête en suppression d'une image que je pense être une image de presse usurpée, j'ai été prise à parti puis, vu que je persistais à douter de la sincérité de cette image, j'ai été bloquée. Mon adresse IP, indiquée dans la procédure de déblocage est la suivante : 83.204.212.105 ; mon IP actuelle : 90.84.144.134 (non indiquée dans la procédure puisque si je me connecte avec, elle sera automatiquement bloquée) ; enfin, mon identifiant de blocage est 124381. J'écris actuellement depuis une connexion mobile. A défaut je ne pourrais vous adresser aucun message puisque tout m'est devenu interdit...

Je vous indique que mon petit ami (Holen-mor), se connectant donc forcément depuis le même ordinateur que moi, a aussi été bloqué au motif de faux-nez et vandalisme.

J'estime qu'il est inconcevable d'être traitée ainsi et muselée de la sorte au moindre désaccord. Je pense également qu'il est inadmissible que des fichiers douteux soient légitimés par l'opération de copineries, comme c'est ici le cas. Pour cette raison je ne peux ni ne veux continuer à cautionner des agissements délinquants, et il est hors de question que mes contributions continuent à demeurer sur un site qui méconnait autant les droits liés aux images.

Aussi je vous demande gracieusement :

1 - de débloquer mon compte afin que je puisse ouvrir les requêtes en suppression sur mes fichiers téléversés ; à défaut de procéder vous-mêmes et sans délais à ces suppressions.
2 - de supprimer définitivement mon compte tout en veillant à ce que celui-ci ne puisse être recréé ; ma volonté est de disparaite totalement de ce site qui enfreint sciemment les lois.

A titre subsidiaire, j'estime également être en mesure de solliciter des sanctions exemplaires à l'encontre des administrateurs m'ayant abusivement bloquée pour mieux me faire taire. Ceci d'autant que je ne me suis pas rendue coupable de vandalisme. Le vandalisme tenant plutôt dans l'obstination à défaire, clore et dénaturer systématiquement mes interventions, requêtes et arguments. Néanmoins cette demande demeure facultative, puisque subsidiaire... Au fond, la roue tourne toujours et la vérité finit forcément par éclater un jour. Donc je ne m'en fait pas trop pour l'avenir des concernés.

Merci.

AtomicGagou 12:39, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Père-Lachaise - Division 45 - Kaulek 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 (just a small dust spot in the sky to remove, see note). --Selbymay 16:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC) Fixed thanks. --Coyau 17:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Père-Lachaise - Division 45 - Kaulek 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. --Moonik 15:47, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Père-Lachaise - Division 45 - Kaulek 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 Good quality. --Poco a poco 18:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Père-Lachaise - Division 45 - Kaulek 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 Good quality. --Poco a poco 18:26, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Père-Lachaise - Division 45 - Kaulek 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 quality. --Iifar 17:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Père-Lachaise - Division 65 - Durand-Fornas 11.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

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Père-Lachaise - Division 10 - Guillaume Dubufe 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 quality. --Poco a poco 18:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Père-Lachaise - Division 10 - Guillaume Dubufe 11.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. --JLPC 17:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Père-Lachaise - Division 55 - Antoine-Gaëtan Guérinot 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. --Malchen53 07:54, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Père-Lachaise - Division 55 - Antoine-Gaëtan Guérinot 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 OK --A.Savin 09:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Père-Lachaise - Division 55 - Antoine-Gaëtan Guérinot 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 quality. --JLPC 17:07, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Catégorie FoP France

[edit]

Bonjour,

Peux-tu jeter à Category:Musée national Fernand Léger, transférer vers fr. la façade du musée et regarder la date de restauration pour le reste ?

Merci. --Dereckson (talk) 20:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

mobilier urbain

[edit]

Coyau bonjour,

Je suis engagé, avec la Ville de Paris et à titre professionnel, dans un travail éditorial concernant le mobilier urbain. Votre regard me semble particulièrement pertinent par rapport à notre approche du sujet.

Pouvons-nous entrer en contact rapidement ?

Merci,

François Bodet - Direction de l'urbanisme de la Ville de Paris - 01 42 76 39 09 - francois.bodet@paris.fr 23/05/13

Quality Image Promotion

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Théâtre des Bouffes du Nord 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. --Steindy 20:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Théâtre des Bouffes du Nord 15.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. --Christian Ferrer 04:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Théâtre des Bouffes du Nord 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  Support OK --A.Savin 16:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Théâtre des Bouffes du Nord 16.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. --JLPC 15:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Théâtre des Bouffes du Nord 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. --Steindy 20:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Théâtre des Bouffes du Nord 15.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. --Christian Ferrer 04:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Théâtre des Bouffes du Nord 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  Support OK --A.Savin 16:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Théâtre des Bouffes du Nord 16.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. --JLPC 15:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Musée national de céramique (Sèvres) 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. --JLPC 17:28, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Musée national de céramique (Sèvres) 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 Good quality. --NorbertNagel 19:42, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sèvres - enlèvement des vases de Jingdezhen 007.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. --JLPC 16:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sèvres - enlèvement des vases de Jingdezhen 030.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.--V-wolf 19:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sèvres - Émaillage 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 Good quality. --Smial 11:33, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Place de la République (Paris), réaménagement, 2013-06-14 09.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. --Smial 12:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Canon EOS 7D 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. --JDP90 17:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Canon EOS 7D 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. --JDP90 17:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Canon EOS 7D 10.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. --JDP90 17:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sèvres - Grand atelier - calibrage 128.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 IMO--Lmbuga 11:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sèvres - Grand atelier - garnissage & découpage 27.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, and more: really a great series of photos --Smial 23:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Manufacture nationale de Sèvres, vue 003.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. --JLPC 17:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sèvres - Grand atelier - calibrage 052.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--Lmbuga 18:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sèvres - Grand atelier - calibrage 068.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. --Smial 23:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sèvres - Grand atelier - garnissage & découpage - réticulé 14.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. --Smial 23:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sèvres - Grand atelier - calibrage 105.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. --Smial 22:07, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Père-Lachaise - Division 4 - Lebegue de Germiny 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 QI for me--Lmbuga 20:36, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Loss of information value

[edit]

I think, that with this change, we lost and information, that there is Bryophyta.--Juandev (talk) 19:23, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can revert, if you want. --Coyau (talk) 22:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pont rue Charles Renouvier

[edit]

bonjour, votre photo du pont est sympa, vous n'auriez pas pris (le même jour) un cliché d'ensemble du pont ? . cordialement Littlejazzman (talk) 17:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Transfert commons -> fr

[edit]

Bonjour,

Une demande ici. --Dereckson (talk) 01:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A la recherche de la fiche d'un MH dans Paris 10e

[edit]

Bonjour Coyau,
J'ai versé une photo du musée de l’Éventail dans Paris 10e, dont la salle d'exposition est classée au titre des Monuments historiques d'après la fiche des Journées européennes du patrimoine. Mais je n'ai pas trouvé sa fiche Mérimée. Existerait-elle à une autre adresse (l'immeuble fait un angle) ? Merci bien par avance, --Myrabella (talk) 14:13, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour Myrabella,
J'ai cherché dans la base Mérimée (j'imagine que toi aussi), rien. Je suis tombé sur ce dossier de presse qui parle de « classé à l’inventaire des monuments historiques » (page 5), qui a l'air assez confus entre « classé MH », « inscrit à l'inventaire supplémentaire des MH » (maintenant « inscrit MH »). Je regarde les documents graphiques du PLU (planche H05), mais il n'y a pas d'étoile, ni rose (classé MH) ni noire (inscrit MH) ni jaune (« parcelle signalée pour son intérêt patrimonial, culturel ou paysager »).
C'est pas la première fois que je vois un truc du 10e arrdt réputé monument historique dans la « littérature » et qui n'est en fait pas protégé (j'avais passé un moment à chercher pour la mairie).
Sinon, le 2 bld de Strasbourg, c'est aussi le 10 bld Saint-Denis. --Coyau (talk) 16:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merci, Coyau, pour la recherche ! J'avais également posé la question aussi sur fr:WP -> réponse : il y a beaucoup d'éléments dans ce lieu classés au titre objets. De là sans doute l'approximation... --Myrabella (talk) 11:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alors, c'est sur la base Palissy (pas Mérimée), ici, et il faut utiliser le modèle {{Palissy}} sur Commons. --Coyau (talk) 11:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oui j'avais bien vu, mais merci pour ton lien d'ensemble, plus compact que celui que j'avais inséré dans la description du fichier. Je n'ai mis le modèle Palissy que pour un seul objet, car il y a plusieurs dizaines d'entrées pour ce musée ! --Myrabella (talk) 13:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Besoin d'un admin' pour mettre à jour un script gérant les galeries VI

[edit]

Bonjour Coyau,
Puis-je faire appel à toi pour mettre à jour un script gérant les galeries VI ? C'est pour permettre d'ajouter une galerie "Bridges". Le discussion en PDD d'Eusebius. Il faudrait adapter la page MediaWiki:VIhelper.js, avec une ligne supplémentaire entre "Skyscrapers and towers" et "Other" : 

'Places/Buildings/Skyscrapers and towers',
'Places/Buildings/Bridges',
'Places/Buildings/Other',


Grand merci par avance, --Myrabella (talk) 18:29, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fait. --Coyau (talk) 18:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merci beaucoup ! Pour l'ordre alphabétique, Eusebius nous avait indiqué : "Any modification in the galleries should be translated into MediaWiki:VIhelper.js: the list at the beginning of the script must stricly fit the structure of the galleries." lors de cette discussion. Je suppose donc que si on modifie l'ordre des rubriques dans MediaWiki:VIhelper.js, il faut aussi le faire dans Commons:Valued images by topic et toutes les sous-listes incluses, par exemple Commons:Valued images by topic/Places/Buildings, et là, ça commence à être assez pénible... Cependant, j'aurais pu le faire pour la partie "Buildings" ; quoique débuter une liste de bâtiments par les ponts, c'est peut-être un peu curieux, mais la vérité est que je n'y ai pas pensé du tout ! Merci du coup de main en tout cas. --Myrabella (talk) 20:37, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ça marche ! VICbot reconnait la nouvelle galerie [1]. Merci pour l'aide apportée, à bientôt, --Myrabella (talk) 12:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Génial ! --Coyau (talk) 12:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Renommer des photos

[edit]

Bonsoir, vous pourrez peut-être m'aider : j'ai importé 50 photos dans Category:Murray Head - Cornouaille 2013 mais je me suis trompé dans le nommage des fichiers en mettant 2012 au lieu de 2013. Avez-vous un moyen de les renommer rapidement ? Cordialement, Kergourlay (talk) 19:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Script ToolbarMH.js

[edit]

Bonjour Coyau. Depuis quelque temps, mon User:Jack ma/monobook.js ne fait plus apparaître la barre MH que tu as faite : User:Coyau/ToolbarMH.js alors que j'importe ton script dans le mien, ce qui est bien gênant (mes boutons non plus n'apparaissent plus, je viens de les désactiver dans un 1er temps). As-tu eu ce genre de pb ? D'autre part, la police de caractères dans la fenêtre d'édition est devenue trop grosse (je n'avais pas touché mes préférences); là aussi as-tu une solution ? (je viens aussi de poser la question au bistro de ce jour). Cordialement, Jack ma (talk) 14:11, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pareil chez moi pour les boutons, je vais faire des essais.
Pour la police, ça doit être une mise à jour du logiciel un peu à l'arrache, ça fait ça sur de nombreux wikis, il y a un truc à changer dans les préférences, Style de police de la zone de modification → police à chasse fixe.
Cordialement, Coyau (talk) 14:34, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Les boutons sont réparés. --Coyau (talk) 15:28, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Super, merci ! Jack ma (talk) 15:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour. J'ai maintenant un petit problème avec HotCat qui a disparu, et qui me semble lié. J'ai mis un mot au bistro ici et au gadget HotCat. Peut-être tu as la solution (je ne suis pas fort en javascript, et en particulier je ne vois pas où est déclaré "mw"). Le pire c'est que le bouton que j'ajoute marche bien (malgré le message d'erreur sur la console)... Cordialement, Jack ma (talk) 09:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Rillke a résolu le pb. C'était mon "addbutton" dont la syntaxe a évolué (si tu as le temps, peux-tu me dire stp où je peux trouver de la doc là-dessus ? sinon, pas ce n'est pas grave). Désolé pour le dérangement. Cordialement, Jack ma (talk) 11:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Génial ! C'est réglé avant que j'ai eu le temps de dire que je suis une bille en js. --Coyau (talk) 17:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sèvres - Plâtre - Agathon Léonard, danseuse n°15, modèle plâtre 002.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}}}

Transfert sur WP:fr

[edit]

Coyau,

J'ai vu que tu avais, grâce à ton bot, fait le transfert d'images de bâtiments réalisés par Ali Tur encore sous copyvio (jusqu'en 2048). Fortuitement, je me suis aperçu il y a qlq jours seulement que cinq autres images sont dans le même cas (œuvre en totalité de cet architecte et non simples restructurations) :

  • Église des Abymes
    Église des Abymes
  • Église de Baie Mahault
    Église de Baie Mahault
  • Mairie de Petit-Bourg
    Mairie de Petit-Bourg
  • Église de Petit-Bourg
    Église de Petit-Bourg
  • idem
    idem

Pourrais-tu en assurer à nouveau le transfert vers WP:fr. Désolé de ne pas m'en être rendu compte plutôt. C'est la notif d'Aristoi sur ma pdd WP:fr qui m'a fait refaire une vérification précise de toutes les images que j'ai faite en Guadeloupe. Je n'ai rien repéré d'autre. Merci par avance--LPLT (talk) 16:46, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

droit d'auteur

[edit]

Bonjour. J'ai besoin d'un renseignement concernant le droit d'auteur des immeubles, et on ma dirigé à vous. J'ai posé je ne sais combien de questions sur le Bistro de Commons, mais absolument aucune personne n'a pu me donner des réponses concrètes, à croire que je ne m'exprime pas assez bien français. Je vais tenter de vous expliquer mon problème. Il y a quelque mois j'ai pris plusieurs photos (que j'ai ajouté sur Commons) de différents bâtiments édifiés récemment. Et il y a quelques jours ces photos ont été supprimées. Ma question c'est : POURQUOI ? Je sais qu'il y a une question de droit d'auteur, d'une période de 70 ans et qu'il faut demander à l'architecte. Mais comment je peux demander à l'architecte ? Je ne le connais même pas ! Et si il est mort ?? Je pense que je ne suis pas la seule personne qui ajoute des photos de bâtiment récent sur Commons, donc vous n'allez pas me dire que tous ceux qui ajoute des photos sur Commons ont demandé à l'architecte ? Merci 90.33.188.126 14:58, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sèvres - Plâtre - Agathon Léonard, danseuse n°15, modèle plâtre 001.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

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sèvres - Moulage-reparage - moulage 009.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. --Smial 19:14, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sèvres - Moulage-reparage - moulage 026.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. --Smial 19:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sèvres - Moulage-reparage - moulage 012.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}}}

Editor @ ar.wiki

[edit]

Hello. I would like to inform you that I have granted you editor flag at the Arabic Wikipedia, all your edits there will be automatically marked as patrolled. Best regards.--Avocato (talk) 13:55, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Button MH black.png

[edit]
File:Button MH black.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please 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） ∙ +/−

Tangopaso (talk) 21:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Button MH red.png

[edit]
File:Button MH red.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please 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） ∙ +/−

Tangopaso (talk) 21:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Transfert d'images supprimées vers wiki.fr

[edit]

Hello

Tout d'abord, comme il est encore temps, tous mes meilleurs voeux pour 2014!

Je t'envoie ce message suite à la suppression de nombreux fichiers de la Category:Douaumont ossuary, une suite de trois DR (dont deux de masse visibles ici Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Douaumont ossuary, les plus anciennes ayant été faites individuellement), je voulais savoir s'il était possible de faire intervenir Le_plus_bot pour transférer toutes les images de la Category:Douaumont ossuary qui auraient été supprimées (du moins celles qui entrent dans l'exception de wiki_fr, car il est possible que l'une ou l'autre n'entre pas dans l'exception du fait qu'elles montrent des sculptures). N'étant moi-même pas admin je n'ai plus accès à ces images pour les téléverser tout seul. En revanche je pourrai m'occuper des descriptions et des catégorisations si besoin. Voilà merci beaucoup! Jeriby (talk) 21:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! La Trinité-des-Monts by Corot Louvre RF2041 n02.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 then. Mattbuck 17:34, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Brocoli 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 Très bien ! (Il va falloir que je l'essaie, ce truc.)--Jebulon 14:01, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Brocoli 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 quality. --Bgag 15:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Chou de Milan 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. --JLPC 18:04, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Chou de Milan 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. --Poco a poco 21:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Chou frisé 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. --Berthold Werner 12:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Chou de Milan 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 Good quality. --Berthold Werner 12:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Chou de Milan 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. --Berthold Werner 12:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Featured picture nomination - Ed Koch

[edit]

Hello Coyau,

Please support or oppose this nomination: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Koch_%E2%80%93_Mayor_of_the_City_of_New_York.jpg

DmitryBorshch (talk) 22:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Chou romanesco 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. --JLPC 17:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Chou-fleur 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 Also good.--ArildV 16:56, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Chou-fleur 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 High quality and EV.--ArildV 16:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Chou cabus blanc 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. --Ralf Roletschek 15:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Chou-rave 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 Good quality. --Cayambe 19:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Chou-rave 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 quality. --Poco a poco 21:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Chou-rave 10.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. --Isiwal 16:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Chou-rave 11.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. --Berthold Werner 17:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Chou-fleur 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. --Ralf Roletschek 15:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Chou romanesco 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 Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 15:39, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Chou romanesco 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. --Mattbuck 23:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Chou romanesco 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 Marginal, but ok. --Mattbuck 23:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Camion-nacelle place Saint-Michel (Paris) 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. --Poco a poco 19:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Chou-rave 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 Good quality. --Mattbuck 16:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sèvres - Grand atelier - calibrage 033.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. --Smial 11:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sèvres - Grand atelier - calibrage 025.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. --Smial 11:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sèvres - Grand atelier - calibrage 026.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. --Smial 11:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sèvres - Grand atelier - calibrage 055.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. --Smial 11:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sèvres - Grand atelier - calibrage 058.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. Great series. --Smial 11:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Versements simultanés sur les mêmes noms de fichiers ou presque...

[edit]

Bonjour Coyau, Nous avons versé des fichiers au même moment ou presque, avec quasiment les mêmes noms... Par exemple, un des tiens : File:Sèvres_-_petit_coulage_-_supports_de_cuisson_060.jpg et un des miens : File:Sèvres_-_Petit_coulage_-_supports_de_cuisson_060.jpg (je poursuivais ta série...) --Myrabella (talk) 17:15, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour Myrabella,
Oui, j'ai vu. J'ai même eu un moment de frayeur en ne retrouvant pas sur mon disque dur les photos que je voyais dans la catégorie (le temps de comprendre…). Ma série s'arrête à 73, là j'ai fini. En même temps, l'histoire des capitales/minuscules permet d'éviter les collisions, c'est plutôt chouette :) --Coyau (talk) 17:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Père-Lachaise - Division 70 - arbre en fleurs 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 OK. --JLPC 18:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sèvres - Mago 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. --Pyb 14:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sèvres - Magot 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. --Pyb 14:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sèvres - Mago 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. --Pyb 14:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sèvres - Magot 09.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 quality. --Thesupermat 10:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, the perspective is not yet handled properly. --Cccefalon 11:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Info New upload. The shelf is old and nothing is really straight, it is not easy to get it convincing. --Coyau 12:32, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done No worries, I don't request tasks that cannot be accomplished and the verticals in your new upload are perfect. Thank you for your series of wonderful photos. --Cccefalon 14:50, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sèvres - Mago - Pajou, buste de Madame du Barry 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. --Cccefalon 22:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sèvres - Magot - Pajou, buste de Madame du Barry 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. --Ralf Roletschek 14:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sèvres - petit coulage - démoulage 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 {{{3}}}

Quality Image Promotion

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sèvres - Mago - Pajou, buste de Madame du Barry 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 QI imo.--ArildV 09:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sèvres - Grand atelier - calibrage 009.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 to disturbing imo, otherwise good and good EV.--ArildV 09:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sèvres - Grand atelier - calibrage 011.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 a big problem for that kind of images, good quality and EV imo.--ArildV 09:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sèvres - Grand atelier - calibrage 022.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. --JLPC 14:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sèvres - petit coulage - supports de cuisson 038.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, though very slight (1/3 or 1/2 f-stop) overexposure. --Smial 13:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sèvres - petit coulage - supports de cuisson 061.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 I appreciate open aperture photos very much, but here the DoF is too shallow. For an object photography I expect a little bit more overall sharpness for the object. Unfortunately not a QI for me. --Cccefalon 11:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For an object photography, yes. But it is not a studio shoot, light was pretty low, hands are moving, I had no choice on speed, and high ISO makes noise. --Coyau 11:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK Ok. Let's wait some hours for the opinion of another experienced reviewer before I finalize a decision. --Cccefalon 12:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's OK. Mattbuck 21:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

[edit]

Pour avoir tué dans l'oeuf la sournoise tentative d'appropriation des catégories par les rouges jaunes. Sache que ta vigilance a probablement sauvé la vie d'un chaton!

Popo le Chien ouah 17:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Petite demande pour Le plus bot :-)

[edit]

Hello! J'aurais besoin si possible d'un transfert d'image supprimée sur Commons pour la mettre sur fr.wp. Il s'agit de File:Electropolis Mulhouse 002.JPG elle servait pour illustrer l'infobox de l'article du musée EDF Electropolis et il n'y a rien de bien équivalent disponible pour illustrer. Voilà merci beaucoup! Jeriby (talk) 17:38, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

C'est fait. --Coyau (talk) 18:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sèvres - Grand atelier - calibrage 024.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. --Mattbuck 21:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

nouveau logo monument historique

[edit]

Bonjour, auriez vous l'amabilité de créer une nouvelle version de mais de couleur verte, comme celle, par exemple, utilisée pour vos cadres Promotion d'images de qualité? Ceci dans le but de réaliser deux nouveaux modèles spécifiques de la base Palissy de même type que [2]. Question subsidiaire, si ce n'est pas trop abuser: pourriez-vous me conseiller un expert compétent pour réaliser ces 2 nouveaux modèles, étant bien incapable de le faire. Merci d'avance. Finoskov (talk) 12:44, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sèvres - Grand atelier - calibrage 071.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. --JLPC 13:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sèvres - Grand atelier - calibrage 086.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. --Pleclown 11:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sèvres - Grand atelier - calibrage 081.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. --Pleclown 11:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Parc des Buttes-Chaumont. Bernache du Canada 02.jpg

[edit]
File:Parc des Buttes-Chaumont. Bernache du Canada 02.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） ∙ +/−

Tangopaso (talk) 17:07, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Parc des Buttes-Chaumont. Bernache du Canada 03.jpg

[edit]
File:Parc des Buttes-Chaumont. Bernache du Canada 03.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） ∙ +/−

Tangopaso (talk) 17:08, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Parc des Buttes-Chaumont. Bernache du Canada 04.jpg

[edit]
File:Parc des Buttes-Chaumont. Bernache du Canada 04.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） ∙ +/−

Tangopaso (talk) 17:09, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Parc des Buttes-Chaumont. Bernache du Canada 05.jpg

[edit]
File:Parc des Buttes-Chaumont. Bernache du Canada 05.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） ∙ +/−

Tangopaso (talk) 17:10, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi, I noticed you uploaded several screenshots of the 1963 film "Cleopatra" and placed a "Not renewed" public domain tag on the images. I thought Cleopatra remained copyright protected, and am wondering if you can explain. I am trying to figure out the details of the "not renewed" license, and it remains murky for me. Please advise. Thank you. KDS444 (talk) 12:01, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, those are screenshots of the trailer, and the copyright status has been reviewed in a RfD. --Coyau (talk) 12:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could you give me a link to that RfD? Thanks! KDS444 (talk) 01:36, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you give me a link to the files. --Coyau (talk) 03:33, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sèvres - Moulin - boudineuse-désaéreuse 010.jpg

[edit]

Bonjour,

Puis-je modifier le titre de ta photo car il ne correspond pas au contenu. --195.5.199.212 09:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Ancien débit de boisson, rue du Faubourg-Poissonnière 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. --Cccefalon 09:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Code issues in User:Coyau/common.js

[edit]

Hi Coyau, I am a bored bot (this is kind of a computer program) that is watching the recent changes and tapping buttons like I did now.

Curious about the reason? Possibly not but I will tell you anyway:

  1. You edited User:Coyau/common.js. Glad to see you coding in javascript! Have you ever considered becoming a MediaWiki hacker?
  2. Though, that change appears to introduce 12 new jshint issues — the page's status is now having warnings. Note that invalid or ambiguous code often has unwanted side effects like breaking other tools for you. If you cannot find out how to fix it, I suggest blanking the page for now.
  3. To help you understanding where the issues are, I have aggregated a report here and now. If you have questions, don't hesitate to ask users experienced in javascript writing for help. But do not ask the bot's operators (chronically overwrought) unless you suspect an error of mine. If you prefer not getting spammed by me, you can opt-out reports by adding {{ValidationOptOut|type=all}} to your user page or cmb-opt-out anywhere on your your global user page on Meta. Good luck at Wikimedia Commons and happy hacking!
  1. ISSUE: line 1 character 43: Missing semicolon. - Evidence: importScript('User:Coyau/resumedeluxe.js')
  2. ISSUE: line 6 character 40: Missing semicolon. - Evidence: importScript('User:Coyau/ToolbarMH.js')
  3. ISSUE: line 22 character 35: Bad or unnecessary escaping. - Evidence: var UploadForm_ownwork_author = "\{\{User:Coyau/cc-by-sa\}\}";
  4. ISSUE: line 22 character 37: Bad or unnecessary escaping. - Evidence: var UploadForm_ownwork_author = "\{\{User:Coyau/cc-by-sa\}\}";
  5. ISSUE: line 22 character 58: Bad or unnecessary escaping. - Evidence: var UploadForm_ownwork_author = "\{\{User:Coyau/cc-by-sa\}\}";
  6. ISSUE: line 22 character 60: Bad or unnecessary escaping. - Evidence: var UploadForm_ownwork_author = "\{\{User:Coyau/cc-by-sa\}\}";
  7. ISSUE: line 25 character 91: Script URL. - Evidence: mw.util.addPortletLink('p-tb', 'javascript:importScript("MediaWiki:VisualFileChange.js");', 'Perform batch task', 't-AjaxQuickDeleteOnDemand');
  8. ISSUE: line 35 character 50: Missing semicolon. - Evidence: importScript('User:Sreejithk2000/JustReplace.js')
  9. ISSUE: line 72 character 9: Bad or unnecessary escaping. - Evidence: '\{\{Artwork', '\n |artist =\{\{creator:}}\n |title =\{\{Title|1=|lang=|de=|en=|fr=|nl=}}\n |wikidata =\n |description =\n |date =\n |medium =\{\{oil on canvas}}\n |dimensions =\{\{Size|unit=|height=|width=}}\n |institution =\{\{institution:}}\n |department =\n |references =\n |object history =\n |exhibition history =\n |credit line =\n |inscriptions =\n |notes =\n |accession number =\n |place of creation =\n |source =\n |permission =',
  10. ISSUE: line 72 character 11: Bad or unnecessary escaping. - Evidence: '\{\{Artwork', '\n |artist =\{\{creator:}}\n |title =\{\{Title|1=|lang=|de=|en=|fr=|nl=}}\n |wikidata =\n |description =\n |date =\n |medium =\{\{oil on canvas}}\n |dimensions =\{\{Size|unit=|height=|width=}}\n |institution =\{\{institution:}}\n |department =\n |references =\n |object history =\n |exhibition history =\n |credit line =\n |inscriptions =\n |notes =\n |accession number =\n |place of creation =\n |source =\n |permission =',
  11. ISSUE: line 72 character 48: Bad or unnecessary escaping. - Evidence: '\{\{Artwork', '\n |artist =\{\{creator:}}\n |title =\{\{Title|1=|lang=|de=|en=|fr=|nl=}}\n |wikidata =\n |description =\n |date =\n |medium =\{\{oil on canvas}}\n |dimensions =\{\{Size|unit=|height=|width=}}\n |institution =\{\{institution:}}\n |department =\n |references =\n |object history =\n |exhibition history =\n |credit line =\n |inscriptions =\n |notes =\n |accession number =\n |place of creation =\n |source =\n |permission =',
  12. ISSUE: line 72 character 50: Bad or unnecessary escaping. - Evidence: '\{\{Artwork', '\n |artist =\{\{creator:}}\n |title =\{\{Title|1=|lang=|de=|en=|fr=|nl=}}\n |wikidata =\n |description =\n |date =\n |medium =\{\{oil on canvas}}\n |dimensions =\{\{Size|unit=|height=|width=}}\n |institution =\{\{institution:}}\n |department =\n |references =\n |object history =\n |exhibition history =\n |credit line =\n |inscriptions =\n |notes =\n |accession number =\n |place of creation =\n |source =\n |permission =',
  13. ISSUE: line 72 character 86: Bad or unnecessary escaping. - Evidence: '\{\{Artwork', '\n |artist =\{\{creator:}}\n |title =\{\{Title|1=|lang=|de=|en=|fr=|nl=}}\n |wikidata =\n |description =\n |date =\n |medium =\{\{oil on canvas}}\n |dimensions =\{\{Size|unit=|height=|width=}}\n |institution =\{\{institution:}}\n |department =\n |references =\n |object history =\n |exhibition history =\n |credit line =\n |inscriptions =\n |notes =\n |accession number =\n |place of creation =\n |source =\n |permission =',
  14. ISSUE: line 72 character 88: Bad or unnecessary escaping. - Evidence: '\{\{Artwork', '\n |artist =\{\{creator:}}\n |title =\{\{Title|1=|lang=|de=|en=|fr=|nl=}}\n |wikidata =\n |description =\n |date =\n |medium =\{\{oil on canvas}}\n |dimensions =\{\{Size|unit=|height=|width=}}\n |institution =\{\{institution:}}\n |department =\n |references =\n |object history =\n |exhibition history =\n |credit line =\n |inscriptions =\n |notes =\n |accession number =\n |place of creation =\n |source =\n |permission =',
  15. ISSUE: line 72 character 218: Bad or unnecessary escaping. - Evidence: '\{\{Artwork', '\n |artist =\{\{creator:}}\n |title =\{\{Title|1=|lang=|de=|en=|fr=|nl=}}\n |wikidata =\n |description =\n |date =\n |medium =\{\{oil on canvas}}\n |dimensions =\{\{Size|unit=|height=|width=}}\n |institution =\{\{institution:}}\n |department =\n |references =\n |object history =\n |exhibition history =\n |credit line =\n |inscriptions =\n |notes =\n |accession number =\n |place of creation =\n |source =\n |permission =',
  16. ISSUE: line 72 character 220: Bad or unnecessary escaping. - Evidence: '\{\{Artwork', '\n |artist =\{\{creator:}}\n |title =\{\{Title|1=|lang=|de=|en=|fr=|nl=}}\n |wikidata =\n |description =\n |date =\n |medium =\{\{oil on canvas}}\n |dimensions =\{\{Size|unit=|height=|width=}}\n |institution =\{\{institution:}}\n |department =\n |references =\n |object history =\n |exhibition history =\n |credit line =\n |inscriptions =\n |notes =\n |accession number =\n |place of creation =\n |source =\n |permission =',
  17. ISSUE: line 72 character 261: Bad or unnecessary escaping. - Evidence: '\{\{Artwork', '\n |artist =\{\{creator:}}\n |title =\{\{Title|1=|lang=|de=|en=|fr=|nl=}}\n |wikidata =\n |description =\n |date =\n |medium =\{\{oil on canvas}}\n |dimensions =\{\{Size|unit=|height=|width=}}\n |institution =\{\{institution:}}\n |department =\n |references =\n |object history =\n |exhibition history =\n |credit line =\n |inscriptions =\n |notes =\n |accession number =\n |place of creation =\n |source =\n |permission =',
  18. ISSUE: line 72 character 263: Bad or unnecessary escaping. - Evidence: '\{\{Artwork', '\n |artist =\{\{creator:}}\n |title =\{\{Title|1=|lang=|de=|en=|fr=|nl=}}\n |wikidata =\n |description =\n |date =\n |medium =\{\{oil on canvas}}\n |dimensions =\{\{Size|unit=|height=|width=}}\n |institution =\{\{institution:}}\n |department =\n |references =\n |object history =\n |exhibition history =\n |credit line =\n |inscriptions =\n |notes =\n |accession number =\n |place of creation =\n |source =\n |permission =',
  19. ISSUE: line 72 character 316: Bad or unnecessary escaping. - Evidence: '\{\{Artwork', '\n |artist =\{\{creator:}}\n |title =\{\{Title|1=|lang=|de=|en=|fr=|nl=}}\n |wikidata =\n |description =\n |date =\n |medium =\{\{oil on canvas}}\n |dimensions =\{\{Size|unit=|height=|width=}}\n |institution =\{\{institution:}}\n |department =\n |references =\n |object history =\n |exhibition history =\n |credit line =\n |inscriptions =\n |notes =\n |accession number =\n |place of creation =\n |source =\n |permission =',
  20. ISSUE: line 72 character 318: Bad or unnecessary escaping. - Evidence: '\{\{Artwork', '\n |artist =\{\{creator:}}\n |title =\{\{Title|1=|lang=|de=|en=|fr=|nl=}}\n |wikidata =\n |description =\n |date =\n |medium =\{\{oil on canvas}}\n |dimensions =\{\{Size|unit=|height=|width=}}\n |institution =\{\{institution:}}\n |department =\n |references =\n |object history =\n |exhibition history =\n |credit line =\n |inscriptions =\n |notes =\n |accession number =\n |place of creation =\n |source =\n |permission =',
  21. ISSUE: line 79 character 9: Bad or unnecessary escaping. - Evidence: '\{\{Technique|', '|adj=|and=|adjand=|and2=|adjand2=|and3=|adjand3=|and4=|adjand4=|on=|adjon=|over=|adjover=|mounted=|adjmounted=}}',
  22. ISSUE: line 79 character 11: Bad or unnecessary escaping. - Evidence: '\{\{Technique|', '|adj=|and=|adjand=|and2=|adjand2=|and3=|adjand3=|and4=|adjand4=|on=|adjon=|over=|adjover=|mounted=|adjmounted=}}',
  23. ISSUE: line 86 character 9: Bad or unnecessary escaping. - Evidence: '\{\{Size|unit=', '|height=|width=|length=|depth=|diameter=|thickness=|prec=|lang=}}',
  24. ISSUE: line 86 character 11: Bad or unnecessary escaping. - Evidence: '\{\{Size|unit=', '|height=|width=|length=|depth=|diameter=|thickness=|prec=|lang=}}',

Your CommonsMaintenanceBot (talk) at 15:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Modifier le nom d'une image

[edit]

Bonjour Coyau,

pourrais-tu, stp, corriger une erreur d'appellation d'une image. Il s'agit de File:Les sablettes.jpg. Cette photo représente la plage de la Verne avec vue au loin sur les Deux-Frères (photo à moi File:Îlots des Deux Frères.JPG). Rien à voir avec les Sablettes, tu peux me faire confiance. Il faudrait rebaptiser dans le genre File: La Verne (plage du Var, 83500), tu t'y connais mieux que moi. Merci.--Béotien lambda (talk) 16:18, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. Pour demander le renommage, il y a le modèle {{rename}} à insérer rempli quelque part dans la description et que les admins ou renommeurs de fichiers surveillent (d'expérience, les fichiers sont renommés dans la journée). --Coyau (talk) 21:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merci, j'ai pris bonne note.--Béotien lambda (talk) 11:16, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Moka KILT. 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 QI imo. --ArildV 06:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Moka KILT. 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. --Cccefalon 06:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Moka KILT. 20.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 --Cccefalon 06:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Pont-l'Évêque 09.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 --Hubertl 17:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Cantal 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 Good Quality --Hubertl 17:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Reblochon 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 Good quality imo. --Kadellar 17:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Crottin 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. --Poco a poco 20:07, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Image

[edit]

I have uploaded an image yesterday at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sakrand_railway_station.jpg. I want to remove this. Dont know what the procedure is. Please do this favor. Ameen Akbar (talk) 17:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sainte-Maure de touraine 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 quality. --XRay 16:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sèvres - sculpture de figures - Agathon Léonard, danseuse 27.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. --Pleclown 12:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sèvres - sculpture de figures - Agathon Léonard, danseuse 42.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. --Slaunger 21:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Files of the Rosetta mission

[edit]

Hi, please don't add Category:Rosetta (city in Egypt) and Category:Philae (Island) to the uploaded files from Flickr. Just use Category:Philae (spacecraft) and Category:Rosetta (spacecraft), and most files would fit in Category:Comet Churyumov-Gerasimenko too. Thanks! --Tine (talk) 20:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rosetta mission poster (11206645224).jpg

[edit]
File:Rosetta mission poster (11206645224).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） ∙ +/−

Uwe W. (talk) 11:26, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Père-Lachaise - Division 31 - Favard du Bourg de Bozas 10.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. --Livioandronico2013 13:24, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

QIC edit

[edit]

Oops! There was a edit conflict, I didn't remove anything (I didn't know), sorry! --Kadellar (talk) 11:03, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, that's what I imagined. There is something wrong with edit conflicts on this page for a long time. --Coyau (talk) 12:07, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Père-Lachaise - avenue des Acacias - poubelle 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. --Cayambe 21:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Père-Lachaise - chemin de la Guérite 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. --JLPC 23:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Père-Lachaise - Division 31 - Adolphe Itasse 11.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 quality--Lmbuga 22:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Père-Lachaise - Division 31 - Adolphe Itasse 12.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. --JLPC 17:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Père-Lachaise - Division 31 - Dubel et Guillard 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 Good quality. --Kadellar 11:59, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Père-Lachaise - chemin Talleyrand 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  Support Good quality. --XRay 16:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Clé à tube FACOM 9 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 Good quality. --Hubertl 21:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Coyau/4&oldid=246388228"