User talk:Ddalbiez

Welcome to the Commons, Ddalbiez!

First steps tutorial Our first steps help file and our FAQ will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki - it is really easy. Getting help More information is available at the Community Portal. You may ask questions at the Help desk, Village Pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons. You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing.		Goodies, tips and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your Graphics abilities. All your uploads are stored in your personal Gallery Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~ Use the CommonSense tool to find good categories for your files (then other people can find them too!) To link to an image page, write this: `[[:Image:Foo.jpg]]`, it makes this: `Image:Foo.jpg` If you're copying files from another project, be sure to use the CommonsHelper Made a mistake? Did you want to rename or move a file? Simply upload the file again and mark the old one like this: `{{bad name\|Correct name}}` For more information read the full Deletion guidelines
(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)

SieBot 15:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your phantastic pictures

Hi Ddalbiez. I really appreciate your beautiful pictures of Khmer temples in Thailand. Thank you for uploading. But I have one request: please add a category to your pictures! I did that already for your temple pictures, but there are still some photos without any category - because I don't know of a "General Dalbiez-Boite".

Thank you. --hdamm (talk) 18:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My question goes into the same direction: please categorize your pics - but the right way! Image:Phimai-AVR2008-017.jpg and others do NOT belong in the Category:Architecture! Instead put them just and only in the Category:Prasat Hin Phima (is that the right name?). This is then categorized into further other cars. Why? because otherwise the Category:Architecture will be messed up very quickly. See Template:Category-building-photo for more info. TomAlt (talk) 14:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@TomAlt: the correct name for your new category would be "Prasat Hin Phimai". (Sorry, but I don't know how to "move" categories!) --hdamm (talk) 16:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

did that. Category:Prasat Hin Phimai TomAlt (talk) 17:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please link images

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

Hello Ddalbiez!

Thank you for providing images to Wikimedia Commons. Please keep in mind that images uploaded to Commons should be useful to all users of Wikimedia projects. This is possible only if the images can be found by other people.

To allow others to find the images you uploaded here, the images should be in some place that can be found by navigating the category structure. This means that you should put the images into appropriate topic pages, categories, optionally galleries, or both of them (see Commons:Categories). To find good categories for your images, the CommonSense tool may help.

You can find a convenient overview of your uploaded files in this gallery.

The important point is that the images should be placed in the general structure somewhere. There are a large number of completely unsorted images on Commons right now. If you would like to help to place some of those images where they can be found, please do!

Thank you. BotMultichillT (talk) 10:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Wat Rong Khun-1.jpg is uncategorized since 29 November 2008. BotMultichillT (talk) 10:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Prasat Ban Muang Cham-002.jpg is uncategorized since 13 April 2009.
Image:Prasat Ban Prasat (Ban That)-008.jpg is uncategorized since 13 April 2009.
Image:Prasat Ban Muang Cham-003.jpg is uncategorized since 13 April 2009.
Image:Wat Kampaeng Laeng-008.jpg was uncategorized on 27 February 2010 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Wat Kampaeng Laeng-009.jpg was uncategorized on 27 February 2010 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

images maroc 1912

les images suivantes présentent un problème vis à vis du respect de la paternité de ces œuvres :

Ces images sont d'après vous datées de mai 1912, ce qui est compatible avec le sujet représenté : Le Gal Lyautey au Maroc. Vous en déclarez la paternité, ce qui signifie que vous avez plus de 96 ans, au minimum 110 pour que vous soyez en age d'utiliser un appareil photographique de l'époque.

Ceci est relativement peu vraisemblable. Pourriez vous indiquer qui en est le véritable auteur, svp ? Et s'il est mort, la date d son décès ? S'il s'agit de photos de famille, et que le décès de l'auteur est inférieur à 70 ans, en êtes vous l'unique héritier ?

Cordialement, Lilyu (talk) 14:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bonsoir,

Ces photos sont des photos numériques prises à partir de quelques unes des 8 boites de photos stéréoscopiques sur verre en ma possession (plus d'une centaine de plaques, s'étalant sur plusieurs années), héritage de mon arrière grand-père, le Général Dalbiez, qui fut sous les ordres de Lyautey et en poste au Maroc au moment où celui ci fut nommé résident général. Mon arrière grand-père était alors général de brigade. Il participa aux campagnes du Maroc du 02/05/1911 au 31/03/1915. La date de mai 1912 est la date des événements et donc des plaques stéréoscopiques. La date des reproductions que j'en ai faites sont dans les Exif des photos. J'ai sélectionné les 9 photos où Lyautey est visible ou bien où mon arrière grand père et son état major l'attendent

En résumé, j'ai la paternité et la propriété des reproductions numériques et la propriété des originaux.

Cordialement

Dominique DALBIEZ

Bonjour :)

Bon, honnêtement, j'ai du mal à voir un général de brigade prendre des photos sur plaque sur verre, ou quand il est lui même sur la photo ;)

Dans le cas où il serait le photographe, pourriez vous indiquer son nom comme auteur svp ? Une indication de la date de sa mort serait également intéressante, pour savoir à partir de quand ces images passeraient dans le domaine publique. Dans le cas d'un héritage, il faut également distinguer la propriété des photo matérielles, de la propriété intellectuelle d'une œuvre. Si ces plaques peuvent être transférées par héritage à un unique ayant droit, les droits intellectuels sont eux répartis sur l'ensemble des héritiers, par parts. Une publication sous licence, à l'intérieur du délai de 70 légal entre la mort de l'auteur et le passage de l'oeuvre dans le domaine publique, impose donc l'accord de la totalité des descendants encore en vie de votre arrière grand père.

Dans le cas où vous seriez l'unique hériter de votre arrière grand père, et qu'il est le photographe, vous êtes habilité à les publier sous licence, avec néanmoins l'obligation de citer l'auteur (votre arrière grand père).
Dans le cas où il serait l'auteur et que vous ayez des frères et sœurs, ou des cousins (tout descendant de votre arrière grand père), vous devez également obtenir leur accord avant publication.
Dans le cas où votre arrière grand père n'est pas l'auteur, mais qu'il a engagé un photographe sous contrat, et obtenu une licence compatible avec la GFDL et la CC BY SA, et que vous êtes l'unique ayant droit, vous pouvez publier cette image sous ces licences, mais vous devez néanmoins citer le photographe.
Dans le cas où ce photographe est mort depuis plus de 70 ans, problème résolut, l'image est sous domaine publique. (mais vous ne pouvez pas publier sous GFDL ou CC BY SA)
Dans le cas où votre arrière grand père a obtenu ces plaques d'un photographe dont vous ignorez le nom, et qu'aucune indication ne montre qu'il ait obtenu de ce photographe des droits suffisant lui permettant de republier cette œuvre, l'image ne peut être publiée. Si aucune indication du nom du photographe n'est obtenue, malgré des recherches poussées de votre part, l'œuvre est probablement anonyme, et elle passe dans le domaine publique 70 ans après sa publication.

J'ai essayé de réfléchir aux différents cas possible, en vous informant du contexte légal d'après mais faible connaissances sur le code de la propriété intellectuelle en france, à titre purement indicatif, et mes propos ne sauraient avoir un statut de conseil juridique, je vous invite à consulter un professionnel.

D'après ces indications, voyez vous les informations que je recherche et qui pourraient nous permettre d'avoir d'avantage d'info sur le statut juridique de ces images ? --Lilyu (talk) 17:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bonsoir, Ces photos me viennent de mon arrière grand-père (qui en était propriétaire, puisqu'en matière de mobilier, "possession vaut titre", ce qui s'applique à moi également), via mon père, et mon grand père. Je suppose que mon arrière grand père devait avoir demandé à un de ses subordonnés de prendre des photos pour lui, mais parmi les plaques en question, on trouve des photos prises alors qu'il n'était plus en activité, sans doute par son frère Auguste ou un ami. Je considère donc que mon arrière grand-père avait également la paternité et la propriété intellectuelle de ces photos. Le Comte Général Denis DALBIEZ est décédé à Nice, à l'hopital Pasteur, le 13 Août 1929.
Pour info, j'ai publié la totalité de ces photos stéréoscopiques sur verre sur mon site personnel de généalogie. Je vais donc indiquer D.Dalbiez (Denis Dalbiez)comme étant auteur de ces photos. Oh!! D.Dalbiez, c'est aussi moi, Dominique Dalbiez, ça c'est ballot! It's a joke! Je vais indiquer Denis Dalbiez. Quel type de licence dois-je indiquer? Cordialement. Dominique DALBIEZ

Bonjour :)

En fait, il existe deux types de propriétés :

Propriété matérielle : vous achetez un DVD d'un film, ce DVD et le film qu'il contient vous appartiennent, et vous pouvez revendre cet unique DVD.
Propriété intellectuelle : vous ne pouvez pas faire des copies de ce film et les vendre/distribuer, parce que vous n'êtes pas propriétaire des droits du film, qui n'appartiennent qu'à l'auteur, puis à sa mort à ses descendants, pendant encore 70 ans.

L'auteur est celui qui prend la photo, c'est lui qui possède les droits intellectuels sur ces images et leurs reproductions. Je conclut de notre discussion que vous ne possédez aucun contrat vous conférant des droits de republication/copie/modification. Vous ne pouvez pas, dans l'absolu, redistribuer ces images.

Maintenant, dans le cas des publications anonymes, la loi française me semble indiquer qu'au delà de 70 ans à partir du 1er janvier suivant l'année de première publication, l'œuvre passe dans le domaine publique, et tout le monde est libre de l'utiliser/distribuer (pas sous licence GFDL ou creative commons, mais sous domaine publique).

Ce cas de figure nécessite une recherche approfondie, il est préférable d'être apte à démontrer qu'une recherche approfondie pour identifier l'auteur c'est montrée infructueuse, avant de prendre le risque de publier une image domaine publique auteur anonyme. Car vous engagez votre responsabilité juridique en le faisant.

Simple note accessoire, votre arrière grand père étant décédé depuis plus de 70 ans, toute œuvre intellectuelle qu'il aurait crée (ce qui n'est pas le cas de ces photos) et publié, est aujourd'hui dans le domaine publique.

Dans le cas où nous nous trouverions avec une image dont l'auteur est anonyme et la publication plus vieille que 70 ans, il reste un dernier point à traiter : la numérisation de cette image. Ici, nous abordons une politique officielle de Wikimedia-Commons, qui est de considéré qu'il n'y a pas création de nouvelle propriété copyright lorsqu'il s'agit d'une reproduction fidèle d'une image dans le domaine publique : il s'agit d'une action mécanique qui ne présente pas suffisamment de créativité artistique pour être éligible à une protection copyright. Le bandeau à utiliser en ce cas est {{PD-scan}}, et la page de Commons hébergeant l'image doit contenir une description de l'image (son contexte historique par exemple), une date de publication, et la mention auteur anonyme, en expliquant ce que nous avons discuté plus haut :).--Lilyu (talk) 12:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour, ça commence à devenir un peu trop compliqué :D

Donc, nous somme en présence d'image d'un auteur probablement anonyme et français (votre arrière grand père n'est pas ce qu'on appelle l'auteur, il n'a pas appuyé "sur le bouton"), mais publiés pour la première fois aux pays bas probablement 70 après la mort de l'auteur. J'avoue qu'on est au delà des connaissances que j'ai pu accumuler sur le droit d'auteur. Le cas semble se rapprocher des archéologues qui obtiennent il me semble une exclusivité de 25 ans sur leurs découvertes... mais c'est flou pour moi ;)

Évidemment la panacée serait de contacter un conseillé juridique spécialisé... mais je me fait pas d'illusions. La publication sur Commons peut s'avérer plus tard problématique, le statut juridique de ces image étant complexe, et je vous informe qu'un débat pour leur suppression peut avoir lieu (et il serait animé).

J'espère ne pas vous avoir trop ennuyé avec cette discussion, et je crois que je n'ai pas encore eu l'occasion de vous dire que j'avais apprécie ces images d'époque du Maroc.

Je ne peux vous fournir d'avantage d'informations, et espère au moins vous avoir fournit l'occasion de voir quel type d'informations nous recherchons sur Commons lors de la publication d'images. Cordialement, Lilyu (talk) 04:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Euh... j'essaye sincèrement de vous suivre, mais votre précédent message prêtait à confusion ^^ vous disiez en gros "ces images, je les ais publiée sur mon site perso" et "la première publication est faite aux Pays bas", comprenez ma méprise

En fait, il y a des serveurs aux pays bas, en corée, en californie et en floride. Techniquement, j'ignore où les présentes images sont matériellement stockées, mais Wikimedia-foundation est une fondation de droit américain déclarée en Floride. Dans le cas qui nous occupe, nous pouvons nous concentrer sur le droit français et américain.

Vous parlez d'émission de télévision, c'est une œuvre collective, et dans le cas d'une émission française par exemple, citer le cameraman est une obligation légale Un magazine peut engager un photographe et obtenir par contrat des droits de publication/modification/copie, appelés copyrights, sur l'image, mais l'auteur est toujours le photographe. Vous même, vous n'êtes en possession d'aucun contrat avec l'auteur de ces photos. Si vous déclarez que la paternité de ces photos est à votre arrière grand père qui se trouve sur les photos, vous commettez une infraction évidente. Cela ne préjuge en rien le fait que vous puissiez avoir des droits de publication pour une autre raison, mais cela ne fera jamais de vous ou de votre arrière grand père l'auteur de ces images.

Pour les spécifités du droit moral français, je vous invite à lire fr:Droit moral et fr:Droit d'auteur sur wikipédia.

Ah au fait ! Vous pouvez signer vos messages en tapant 4 tilde : ~~~~ ou en cliquant sur le bouton qui se trouve dans la barre au dessus de votre fenêtre d'édition. Il vous est également possible de la personnaliser dans vos préférences de votre compte utilisateur. Elle est utile pour signer - dater vos messages, et proposer à vos interlocuteurs un lien vers votre page de discussion. --Lilyu (talk) 15:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour, Je vais reprendre l'argumentation de Lilyu. En gros le problème est simple, votre grand père n'ayant pas pris les photos, il n'a pas pu vous transmettre de droit dessus. L'auteur nous étant inconnu, nous sommes sans moyen de savoir si les photos sont domaines publiques ou non (70 ans après la mort de l'auteur). j'ai bien peur qu'en la situation actuelle, ces images ne doivent être effacées. Esby (talk) 15:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Après des recherches plus approfondies sur les législations en vigueur, et consultation de 3 administrateurs de Commons, j'ai ouvert une page de discussion relative au status juridique de ces images. Indépendamment de la conservation ou non de ces images sur le site, je souhaiterai vous remercier pour notre discussion et vos photos, témoignages historique d'un temps révolu. J'espère qu'elles seront conservées, mais je n'ai pas trouvé de supports juridique permettant, à l'heure actuelle, leur publication sur Commons. Amicalement et avec regret, Lilyu (talk) 16:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peut être. Je l'espère. Le fait que c'est une œuvre anonyme, et qu'il n'est pas possible de prouver que vous pouvez bénéficier du droit de publication dans le cadre d'une première publication au delà du délai de 70 ans après la mort de l'auteur reste problématique.Lilyu (talk) 20:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All your images

Image deletion warning

All your images 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 images, 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.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. 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） ∙ +/−

Bonjour, je voudrais m'excuser des désagréments que vous rencontrez sur Commons par rapport à ces photos. En fait, le site possède une politique assez stricte vis à vis du droit d'auteur et droits copyright. La wikipedia en français aussi, alors que par exemple, la wikipédia en anglais pourrait les héberger pour illustrer un grand nombre d'article, vue l'intérêt historique des photos dont vous êtes dépositaire. Car le site anglais accepte d'héberger des images non-libres dans un but éducatif et informatif. J'ai parcouru votre site, il a des photos vraiment très intéressantes.

Pour ce qui est du droit, on est nombreux parmi les utilisateurs français à souhaiter qu'une loi passe en France, quelque chose comme "image prise avant telle date, entre dans le domaine publique". Le problème se pose pour de nombreuses bibliothèques et banque de données, particulièrement pour les oeuvres d'auteurs inconnus. Malheureusement, le lobbying des maisons de disque vis à vis du piratage, fait qu'aujourd'hui les politiques sont plutôt sensibilisés à un renforcement des lois répressives et un allongement des durées.

Dans quelques années peut être, quand les générations de téléchargeurs fous et consommateurs de produits libre sur le net, parviendront au pouvoir... Qui sait ?Lilyu (talk) 17:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merci. ce que je ne comprends toujours pas, c'est pourquoi Teofilo dit que ces photos n'ont jamais été publiées. Vous avez pu constater le contraire. Quant à publier sur Wikipedia anglais, je doute qu'un article sur Lyautey puisse passionner les foules anglo-saxonnes. Certaines de ces photos (pas celles où figurent Lyautey) vont illustrer un livre à paraitre sur la condition de la femme en Afrique du Nord pendant la colonisation.

En ce qui concerne le droit, ma compréhension est que le droit qui s'applique est celui du lieu où sont publiées les oeuvres, en l'occurence ici, les Pays Bas (ce qui ne change pas grand chose en l'occurence, car je suppose que les différents droits européens sont plus ou moins alignés). Où bien est ce le droit du pays où se situe la personne qui les visionne (ça ne parait pas raisonnable), où bien les lois du pays d'où elles ont été "uploadées"? J'ai quelque expertise de part mon métier dans les problèmes liés à la Loi Informatique et Liberté en France plus spécialement, mais également dans le monde: la loi se base toujours sur le droit du pays où sont stockées les informations. Je crois qu'il serait plus juste de dire que la politique de Wikimedia Commons permet ou ne permet pas de publier telle ou telle photo en se basant sur la législation la plus restrictive, plutôt que faire référence à la loi de telle ou telle pays pas forcément applicable. Bonne soirée. Dom. 18:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Nous essayons de tenir compte de toutes les législations compétentes dans le cas étudié, ce qui peut inclure notamment : le pays où la photo a été prise, là où elle a été publiée, la nationalité de l'auteur, et la législation américaine.Lilyu (talk) 01:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ce que veut probablement dire Teofilo, c est que l'auteur original des photos n'a jamais publié les dites photos, (par exemple dans la presse.) Il est probable qu'il ai remis des tirages privés à votre grand père, mais cela ne peut constituer une publication. Il est aussi possible que votre grand père soit cet auteur, mais le fait qu'il soit présent sur certaines des photos rend la théorie ardue. Le problème est que nous ne pouvons le prouver, Commons restant un dépot d'images sous licence libre, si nous ne pouvons prouver avec certitude cette condition, nous devons alors effacer les images. Il est évident que le risque pour Commons d'héberger ces images est quasi nul, mais l'issue est morale et ethique ici, de part les statuts fondateurs de Commons. Esby (talk) 08:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chao Mae Tuptim-006.jpg

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

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

This message was added automatically by Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Fil nik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Fil nik 13:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Subcategories in Elements of Khmer art

Hi Ddalbiez. I noticed your creation of several Subcategories to Category:Elements of Khmer art. Would you consider merging the male and female variants (Gopa/Gopi or Kinnara/Kinnari and others) into just one category each? Unless of course you have a lot pictures for every single category . --hdamm (talk) 16:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Les 9 devas.jpg

Are you sure about the description of the picture is right. I feel they can be the en:Navagraha (the nine Hindu "planets" or "graha"s) Surya · Chandra · Mangala · Budha · Brihaspati · Shukra · Shani · Rahu · Ketu. The 9 are often depicted together. The first 2 and last 2 correspond to this configuration and the fifth one can be Brihaspati not Indra, Brihaspati's mount is an elephant too. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi The descriptions come from the experts of Musée Guimet. You may challenge them, I don't have the knowledge to do so. Remember that these 9 gods vary from one location to another; this piece of art comes from the khmer empire; khmers did not worship Brihaspati, at least under that name. Take care. Dom (talk)

If It is from the description at Musée Guimet, then it's OK. I asked because I have observed sometimes people give wrong names to Hindu deities on Commons and flickr. TC. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 09:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note

Hello Ddalbiez. Please take note of Category talk:Prasat Ta Muen. --hdamm (talk) 11:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I can't also find anything about the following Khmer or Dvaravati temples (except your page at fr Wikipedia):

Prasat Tao Thong
Wat Dhammachaksemaram

This means, that you probably misspelled the English name - yes I know, even the TTT-signs at the temples often show the wrong romanization ;-)

It would help a lot if you could please use Thai script if possible or at least the Royal Thai General System of Transcription. Thank you. --hdamm (talk) 12:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prasat Tao Thong (14°36'06.0"N 103°43'88.7"E) was a -probably minor- prasat. Not much is left of it,and now there is a buddhist temple standing on its ground, with a Buddha statue and a turtle, hence the name of Prasat of the golden turtle. I will include it in the french Wikipedia just to be exhaustive. I discovered it by accident, going to another prasat, seing a signal mentioning it. Wat Dhammachaksemaram (14°54.992N 101°47.638E) or Dhamma Chakra Sema Ram is also known as Wat Phra Non. Along with the Dvaravati Buddah (that was found at Mueang Sema), several law wheels (pictures to be published) give its name to this temple. Once again, I have a picture of the signal at the entrance (inthai). Tell me where I can send it. Dom (talk) 17:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answer at my talk page. --hdamm (talk) 08:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Prasat Ban Phluang-034.jpg

You will need to upload this again, as it has some jpg-typical file corruption. --Túrelio (talk) 11:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please remove Category:Temples in Thailand from your recent uploads?

~~:Could you please place your recent uploads to Category:Temples in Thailand in to correct subcategories thereof? - Takeaway (talk) 21:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

Could you please remove Category:Temples in Thailand from your recent uploads. They already have been categorised under their correct subcategory so they do not need also appear in Category:Temples in Thailand. Please read COM:OVERCAT for more information on how to categorise media. - Takeaway (talk) 21:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you take a look at Category:Unidentified temples in Thailand?

I have moved some of the photos of temples which you have made in to this category because they lack information on where the temples are located. Could you provide the missing information and place them in to the correct town or province of Thailand? - Takeaway (talk) 00:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done Dom (talk) 02:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! - Takeaway (talk) 02:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in two new categories

I have just created the following categories: "Category:Hindu temple ruins in Thailand" and "Category:Buddhist temple ruins in Thailand". I see that most of the temple categories directly listed in "Category:Temples in Thailand" contain photos which you have made. Could you please help put them in to these two categories? Kind regards, - Takeaway (talk) 08:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Takeaway,

Interesting but, regarding the Prasat I write articles about in the French Wikipedia and for which I upload pictures, quite a lot are from Jayavarman VII's period, when the Khmer empire evolved from Hinduism to Bouddhism; so a significant number of these prasats were hinduist then buddhist and you can find artifacts of both religions in the same building; furthermore, some of the prasats are not temples, so not dedicated to a god.

Thanks again for your valued help.

Dom (talk) 05:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ddalbiez,

I have categorised these temples which have been changed from Hindu to Buddhist temples under both categories Category:Hindu temple ruins in Thailand and Category:Buddhist temple ruins in Thailand. Perhaps there will also be temples which still are not ruins but which did use to be a Hindu temple before. We might need to introduce a new category eventually called Category:Former Hindu temples in Thailand?

When you say that some prasats were not temples because they were not dedicated to a god, does that mean that the word "temple" is defined as meaning "building dedicated to the worship of a god"? If they are not dedicated to a god, what was then the function of these prasat? - Takeaway (talk) 17:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Takeaway,

Prasat is a generic word meaning palace (of the gods) or castle, and, sometimes, by extension, temple (though the word temple is in Thai wat, but restricted to Buddhist temples); some prasats were probably only chapels, adjacent to hospitals and these chapels are sometimes called kuti by the Thais (i.e. the place where ermits would live); some of the building are called bannalai, whih is translated by library, but then again, we are not sure about what they were used for. And then you have the prangs which are the sanctuary towers, remnants of temples. You can see all this is not very clear, due to the lack of historical studies or evidence; that's why I was very happy with the "khmer ruins in Thailand" category you created, and not so happy with the "khmer temple ruins in Thailand". But I can live with all this, as my main interest is taking pictures of all these prasats (and other artefacts in SE Asia) and writing articles about all these in the French Wikipedia. Thbnaks again for the clean up!! Dom (talk) 01:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I looked up the word "prasat" (see: here) and it says it can mean a castle, a palace or a temple. It was for this reason that I recategorised the present prasat categories to Category:Khmer temple ruins in Thailand so that when media is uploaded of Khmer ruins which are not temple, these can be put in a separate category, for instance: Category:Khmer palace ruins in Thailand. Is this what you mean with "some of the prasats are not temples"?

Dear Takeaway, I don't think it would be a good idea; the Department of fine arts of Thailand avoids to translate Prasat into temple, palace, chapel, etc, in their own translation; they use prasat, kuti, muang, prang, and then, in the details they mention if the building was used as a temple. I really would like to stick to "Khmer ruins in Thailand" and drop "Khmer temple ruins in Thailand". Dom (talk) 02:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ddalbiez, I understand your concerns but it is a bit of a dilemma. I have been thinking it over for a few days now. The thing is, most of the photos which you have upload were uploaded to "Category:Temples in Thailand" so they are already categorised as being "temples". I would really like to clear up that category and the only way I see how is to categorise them in to "Category:Khmer temple ruins in Thailand". Although the Thai department of fine arts avoids calling them "temples", it does make sense in English, where a temple is defined as "a structure reserved for religious or spiritual activities, such as prayer and sacrifice, or analogous rites." (See: temple.) I would suggest that only those Khmer structures which are definitely not used for religious purposes, should be categorised in "Category:Khmer ruins in Thailand" and all religious structures will go to (or stay in) "Category:Khmer temple ruins in Thailand". - Takeaway (talk) 05:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant category "Khmer ruins in Thailand" in your recent uploads

Dear Ddalbiez, your recent uploads (such as File:Prasat Ban Phluang-001.jpg and another 115 more in category "Khmer ruins in Thailand") have been wrongly categorised as it contains both the parent category and a subcategory. Just as with the your uploads to category "Temples in Thailand" (such as File:Prasat Ban Phluang-007.jpg and another 75 files) which also and contains the parent category as well as a subcategory. I have worked for about two whole days last week to get all the categories and files in Category:Temples in Thailand and its subcategories in order and cleaned up. I can tell, that it was a big mess before the clean-up. I again urge you to read COM:OVERCAT to understand what the reasoning is behind getting a file or category in to its most specific category and not into both parent categories as well as its subcategories. I hope you will also find the time to clear out the over-categorisation of your uploads to Category:Khmer ruins in Thailand and Category:Temples in Thailand. - Takeaway (talk) 22:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Takeaway,

I am very confused about your messages: following modification of categories of some of my pictures (I believe these changes were made by you, but maybe it was somebody else) adding a category of "Khmer ruins in Thailand", I started categorizing my new uploads in the same way. And now you are telling me I should not have done that? Furthermore, you changed the "Khmer ruins in Thailand into "Khmer temples ruins in Thailand"; doing so you have categorized as temples some chapels, hospitals, even whole cities (muang)... I would have preferred to stay with the simple khmer ruins category.

So, what I propose to do in the future (as I initially did) for my uploads is just to mention the following category: name of the prasat; for some pictures where elements can be identified (Naga, Kala, gods and goddesses, etc), I will include those cateegories as well.

What do you think?

FYI, the initial categories I used for my first Prasat pictures were Wikified by hdamm, an expert who helped me a lot.

Thank you for your valued and much appreciated help.

Dom (talk) 05:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! I think I need to explain a little bit about categorising media here in Wikimedia Commons. I will give you an example, for instance:

-You created a category called Category:Prasat Ta Muen Thom which is placed in Category:Temples in Thailand

-You placed File:Prasat Ta Muen Thom-007.jpg in this category but you also placed this file in Category:Temples in Thailand.

Placing File:Prasat Ta Muen Thom-007.jpg in to Category:Temples in Thailand was not necessary because Category:Prasat Ta Muen Thom was already placed in Category:Temples in Thailand. This is what they mean with the text in COM:OVERCAT when they write that it is advised to place a file only in its most specific category or categories and 'not also in a parent category (a parent category is a category that is higher up in the same line such as Category:Temples in Thailand is the parent category of Category:Prasat Ta Muen Thom).

I hope the previous explanation clarified the whole categorisation system a bit. I will remove part of the "overcat" for you so you can see what I mean.

Thanks for all the uploads, I really enjoy looking through them and I made a list of temples that I need to visit when I travel to Isarn!

Kind regards, - Takeaway (talk) 17:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have just removed all the overcategorised media to Category:Temples in Thailand and Category:Khmer ruins in Thailand so you now don't have to do that any more. To the right is a (very quickly made) drawing illustrating what I have written about categorisation and what went wrong with your last set of uploads. I hope this explains it all. Cheers! - Takeaway (talk) 19:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, i understand now. Dom (talk) 01:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prasat Prang Ku

Hi Dom. I'm editing articles (in German wikipedia) about districts in Sisaket Province. There is one Amphoe Prang Ku, where in the History it is stated: "The district is named after Prang Samong, located in Ban Ku." I suppose that your pictures in Category:Prasat Prang Ku are made in Amphoe Prang Ku? Is it the same "Prang Samong"? Do you have more information about it? --hdamm (talk) 12:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Heinrich. Yes the pictures I took are from Amphoe Prang Ku. As for "Prang Samong", could it be "Prasat Hin Ban Samo" located :in amphoe Prang Ku as well, south-east of Pran Ku, as you can see on this map? (see: [1])

I hope this helps.

Dom (talk) 13:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dom. I think, it's the one that you call "Prasat Prang Ku", because in the history section of amphoe.com it is stated:

... ชื่อของอำเภอตั้ง ตามโบราณสถาน คือ "ปรางค์สามองค์" ตั้งอยู่ที่ บ้านกู่ ม.1 ต.กู่ เรียก ว่า "ปรางค์กู่" ...

That is: the name (of Amphoe Prang Ku) is derived from the old name of "Prang Samong", that today is in Moo 1 of Ban Ku in Tambon Ku and named "Prang Ku".

A bit strange, but thanks for your help anyhow. --hdamm (talk) 17:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Episodes of Buddha's life

Proposed sub-categories:

The tushita heaven
Buddha's birth
The four encounters
The great departure
The cutting of the hair
The practice of austerities
Sujita's gift
The preparation for enlightenment
The defeat of Mara
Buddha's enlightenment
The Naga Mudhalinda
The bowls wit offerings
Buddha's first sermon (the deer park sermon)
The gist of the Shravasti's hermitage
The great miracle of Shravasti
Buddha's sojourn in Indra's heaven
The miracle of Parilyyaka forest
Devadatta's transgression and the subjugation of Nalagiri
The dispute of the Shakya and the Kolyia
Jatakas (previous lifes of Buddha): cab be sub-categorized if necessary

Notification about possible deletion

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:

Yours sincerely, Raoli ✉ (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

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:

File:Stadio dei marmi 001.jpg

Yours sincerely, Raoli ✉ (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Phra Nakhon Khiri (Petchaburi)-013.jpg

I should like to advise you that I have used your abovementioned image in my book: "Buddhistische Tempelanlagen in Thailand" (Buddhist Temples of Thailand) ISBN 978-3-7357-3903-2 --Zenwort (talk) 07:50, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chao Mae Tuptim-006.jpg

I should like to advise you that I have used your abovementioned image in my book: "Buddhistische Tempelanlagen in Thailand" (Buddhist Temples of Thailand) ISBN 978-3-7357-3903-2 --Zenwort (talk) 08:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kuti Reussi 1, 2?

Hi Ddalbiez. I was trying to find a categorie for this photo: File:กู่ฤๅษี อ.บ้านใหม่ไชยพจน์ 2.JPG, I tried to locate those two Kuti Reussi that you took photos of. The coordinates in your French articles are just some 100 metres apart, is that correct? I added a description in Category:Kuti Reussi-2, could you please verify it (I think the Category:Amphoe Chaloem Phra Kiat, Buriram is wrong here)? Maybe you could add a similar descruption for Category:Kuti Reussi-1? So, now into which category would the above mentioned photo fit?

Greetings --hdamm (talk) 10:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry - can you read Thai? if not, the file name of the photo in question is "Kuti Ruesi Amphoe Ban Mai Chaiyaphot". --hdamm (talk) 10:31, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Both these Reussi are close to Prasat Muang Tam, they are very close to each other. Yes about 100-200 meters. Don't know the amphoe really. Dom

--Dom (talk) 09:50, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Dom. --hdamm (talk) 11:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wat Kampaeng Laeng-001.jpg

File:Wat Kampaeng Laeng-001.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） ∙ +/−

Taivo (talk) 08:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Wat Rong Khun-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 Good quality. --PumpkinSky 13:20, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Ddalbiez

Contents

Your phantastic pictures

Please link images

images maroc 1912

All your images

File:Chao Mae Tuptim-006.jpg

Subcategories in Elements of Khmer art

File:Les 9 devas.jpg

Please note

File:Prasat Ban Phluang-034.jpg

Could you please remove Category:Temples in Thailand from your recent uploads?

Can you take a look at Category:Unidentified temples in Thailand?

You might be interested in two new categories

Redundant category "Khmer ruins in Thailand" in your recent uploads

Prasat Prang Ku

Episodes of Buddha's life

Notification about possible deletion

Notification about possible deletion

Phra Nakhon Khiri (Petchaburi)-013.jpg

Chao Mae Tuptim-006.jpg

Kuti Reussi 1, 2?

File:Wat Kampaeng Laeng-001.jpg

Quality Image Promotion

Navigation menu

User talk:Ddalbiez

Your phantastic pictures

Please link images

images maroc 1912

All your images

File:Chao Mae Tuptim-006.jpg

Subcategories in Elements of Khmer art

File:Les 9 devas.jpg

Please note

File:Prasat Ban Phluang-034.jpg

Could you please remove Category:Temples in Thailand from your recent uploads?

Can you take a look at Category:Unidentified temples in Thailand?

You might be interested in two new categories

Redundant category "Khmer ruins in Thailand" in your recent uploads

Prasat Prang Ku

Episodes of Buddha's life

Notification about possible deletion

Notification about possible deletion

Phra Nakhon Khiri (Petchaburi)-013.jpg

Chao Mae Tuptim-006.jpg

Kuti Reussi 1, 2?

File:Wat Kampaeng Laeng-001.jpg

Quality Image Promotion

Navigation menu

Search