User talk:FredD/Archives jusqu'en 2019

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, FredD!

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions 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 (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki. 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 (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.

Goodies, tips, and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities. You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads. Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~. To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg. You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account. There are several tools to upload files. Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful. Made a mistake? Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it. Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

-- 16:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Domaine public NOAA

Bonjour,

Plusieurs organismes détiennent des photos dans le domaine public. Or, Flickr ne permet pas d'indiquer ce statut. Ils recourent le plus souvent à la solution suivante :

• choisir la licence CC-BY dans la configuration du compte Flickr, pour indiquer l'utilisation la plus libérale de l'image ;
• noter explicitement le domaine public sur la page de profil du compte.

C'est le cas de la NOAA, qui comme toute agence fédérale américaine, n'a pas de droit d'auteur sur ses productions. Elle indique sur sa page de profil : “This website captures a selection of images from the 47,000 public domain images residing in the NOAA Photo Library.”.

Le modèle pour indiquer qu'une photo de la NOAA est dans le domaine public est {{PD-USGov-NOAA}}. --Dereckson (talk) 11:42, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Collection musée

Rebonjour,

Je vois que tu as téléversé divers spécimens de musée, comme File:Scutella truncata.JPG.

Puis-je t'aider à les décrire ? Je propose de créer une catégorie pour chaque photo venant de ce musée, puis d'indiquer dans la description le n° de collection via les modèles d'items musée. --Dereckson (talk) 11:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Bonjour,
c'est très gentil à toi. J'allais justement demander à Archaeodontosaurus, qui a fait un truc super pour le Museum de Toulouse... Mais je ne suis pas une star du code, et j'ai bien l'impression d'être le seul wikipédiste du Muséum de Paris ! Donc si tu peux harmoniser les quelques photos que j'ai prises, c'est avec grand plaisir. Pour les photos NOAA, je n'ai pas compris les conséquences de ton message : tu crois qu'elles ne sont pas libres de droits comme l'affirme Flickr ? Merci et bonne année, FredD (talk) 21:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Bonjour à tous les deux. Nous avons un modèle pour chaque occasion, forme fossile ou forme vivant. Voici ce qui peut servir de référence file:Pseudocidaris mammosa MHNT.jpg pour les fossiles. On ne crée pas une catégorie par objet mais on s’insère dans ce qui existe. Nous l'avons fait pour la préhistoire c'est une fausse bonne idée, il faut maintenant tout reprendre. Je suis toujours là pour les problèmes n'hésitez pas à me solliciter. Par contre il est vivement recommandé de faire une catégorie pour les pièces du MNHN. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Salut, j'ai essayé d'utiliser le même code que toi Archaeodontosaurus sur la page File:Scutella truncata.JPG, mais ça n'a rien rendu à l'affichage. Tu pourrais voir ce qui cloche ? J'ai créé la catégorie Category:Collection of paleontology of the Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, mais peut-être y a-t-il dfe modèles à créer aussi... Désolé, je suis très mauvais en code et pas un pro de commons ! (suffit de voir le niveau de mes photos par rapport aux tiennes ; d'ailleurs si tu veux venir faire un tour au MNHN ce serait avec plaisir !). Et pour les numéros de collection, je n'y connais rien... Bien amicalement, FredD (talk) 10:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok pour l'oursin. Tu avais oublié de fermer les parenthèses dans la provenance, et ton modèle pour le MNHN n'était pas le bon. J'ai branché la catégorie du MHNT. On avance! Je viens parfois au MNHN, j'essai de convaincre quelques amis à vous laisser travailler et à vous aider... Mais le message ne pas pas. Pour le moment... Ne te décourage pas tu n'es pas seul! --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Merci ! Mais je dois vraiment être une chèvre en code, j'ai toujours un problème : File:Micraster coranguinum 3.JPG. J'ai encore dû laisser des crochets ouverts, mais je ne vois pas où... Pourrais-tu me faire un template vide à juste compléter ? Comme ça je pourrais me débrouiller avec de simples copier-coller... Merci encore ! FredD (talk) 12:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Effectivement tu es fâché avec les parenthèses. Pour le nom binominal n'oublie pas les italiques. Tu peux aussi afférenter les articles dans les différentes encyclopédies, regarde les modifications. On apprend sur le tas. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Re:Mozinor

Hello ! Il les pages ne semblait pas avoir de ticket Commons:OTRS du coup on a aucune trace d'autorisation écrite; à défaut de ça c'est considéré sur Commons comme une violation de droit d'auteur. De plus le terme « fr:Libre de droit » n'existe pas en France. L'auteur a un droit inaliénable sur ses œuvres. Je t'invite donc à t'engager dans la procédure OTRS. Les deux Fichiers que j'ai supprimés :

• File:Mozinor (Avatar officiel).jpg
• File:SoulGame - Kuhogan.jpg

Bien cordialement, Otourly (talk) 08:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello. En fait la 2e illustration n'est pas de moi, et tu n'as effectivement pas supprimé l'autre illustration de Mozinor que j'avais uploadée. Je ne suis pas un pro de Commons, comment puis-je légaliser la présence du fichier à partir de l'accord par mail du créateur ? Merci ! FredD (talk) 10:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Commence par transférer le mail de l'auteur à l'adresse indiquée sur Commons:OTRS/fr, en indiquant l'URL de l'image supprimée [1]. Ils te répondront plus en détail sur ce sujet. Otourly (talk) 18:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Merci, c'est fait ! FredD (talk) 18:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Diadema sp.

Hi FredD,

Are you sure that in this picture File:Diadema antillarum 1.jpg is not Diadema antillarum? On the label at the aquarium it was writen Diadema antillarum. Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 11:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi DenesFeri ! I'm perfectly sure. You can see very well the 5 white dots, and above all the orange ring around the anus, which is very characteristic of this only species (cf. the articles on the english and french Wiki's). Besides, the general shape is not exactly the same, as well as the spines. By the way, I used to work on D. setosum and I know there is no possible confusion (you can find pictures of D. antillarum here). The aquarium must have done a mistake, which is sadly frequent... So yes, Wiki Commons is still looking for a good picture of D. antillarum ! Best regards, FredD (talk) 12:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, thank you for your answer! Cheers! DenesFeri (talk) 14:18, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

new pictures

Hi again,

Could you identify this to species: File:1 - Echinoidea sp. 1.jpg and File:1 - unidentified life form 1.jpg? regards. DenesFeri (talk) 15:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi again. That's not easy, all the more that I don't know where they are from... And aquarium pics are often misleading (and the Blackberry quality is not a blessing !). The first one is a regular Euechinoidea (probably a Camarodonta, then maybe a Toxopneustidae or an Echinidae), and it looks like a clear Sphaerechinus granularis with very short spines, but there are lots of species looking like this... The second one belongs to the Spatangoida, but once again if I don't know where it is from I can't make any statement... And there are too much species in this group to be sure without place, depth and precise characteristics. But you can still categorize them with it, and post the pictures on species identification forums (we have some on Wiki). Cheers, FredD (talk) 15:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

Thank you! Cheers. DenesFeri (talk) 09:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Si tu t'ennuies

Bonjour. Si tu t'ennuies, peux-tu catégoriser les photos du lagon réunionnais dans les catégories mensuelles correspondantes, par exemple File:Scarus psittacus mâle.jpg dans Category:December 2011 in Réunion ? Pour l'instant ces photos échappent à toute arborescence géographique, il est donc moins facile de les retrouver pour qui chercherait à partir des catégories réunionnaises. Thierry Caro (talk) 06:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello ! Je suis en période de rush professionnel en ce moment, donc j'uploade les photos de mon ami Philippe quand je peux quand j'ai des pauses, mais je n'aurai pas le temps de catégoriser les 500 photos de la Réunion ce mois-ci... Je garde en mémoire, n'hésite pas à me relancer ! Merci, FredD (talk) 09:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

redirect

Salut mon ami,
Je suis tes contributions sur commons avec la fierté d'une mère veillant sur son enfant.
J'en profite pour te montrer un détail:
J'ai transformé Stichopus_fuscus en redirect vers Isostichopus fuscus avec {{Synonym taxon category redirect}}.
J'ai aussi ajouté un {{SN}} (synonyms) à Category:Isostichopus fuscus.
Amitiés Liné1 (talk) 19:49, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, je découvre à l'instant ton message ! Merci beaucoup, je m'emmêle encore un peu les pinceaux sur Commons. Sans compter que j'enrage souvent contre ce site, car je passe mes journées à essayer de convaincre des photographes sous-marins de nous donner leurs photos, mais quand ils comprennent que cela impliue une utilisation commerciale, ils partent tous en courant. C'est pareil sur Flickr : Wikipédia serait incomparablement plus riche si on pouvait utiliser des licences non commerciales ou en fair use ! Bref, je m'énerve tout seul. Merci pour ton aide en tout cas ! A bientôt, FredD (talk) 16:19, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support Alone in scope, therefore the best. Mais non, ce n'est pas si lourd, comme procédure, c'est juste une question d'habitude ! En tout cas, là, tout est bon, il manque peut être un nom vernaculaire en anglais....--Jebulon (talk) 00:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Support  Done (est-t-il aussi bon que beau?)--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Aplustrum amplustre

Salut Fred, j'ai fais de menues corrections sur la légende de l'image est sur la nomination. Tu regardera. Peut-on avoir un géocodage dans la légende, même assez vague, pour la bestiole? Ce serait mieux. Bonne soirée. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, oui j'ai vu que tu étais passé, merci beaucoup. Pour le géocodage, à part que c'est pris dans un lagon de l'Ouest de la Réunion, je ne peux rien faire de plus... Mais ça n'ajoutera rien par rapport à la légende du coup. Dis-moi si c'est vraiment nécessaire, mais je préfère ne pas contrefaire une info à si large échelle. Bonne soirée ! FredD (talk) 16:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Effectivement c'est trop vague pour le géocodage. "Lagon ouest de la Réunion" pourrait être utile dans la légende. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support Geocoding impossible for shooting underwater - Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:34, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:24, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

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

review

 Best in Scope An image in the natural environment is more useful.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:41, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:24, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

not Ophidiaster ophidianus?

Hi FredD,

Are you sure that this File:Ophidiaster ophidianus1.jpg is not Ophidiaster ophidianus? And why? And what else could it be? regards. DenesFeri (talk) 08:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, it is definitely not an Ophidiaster ophidianus, and obviously not even a species of the Ophidiasteridae family. Ophidiaster ophidianus has rounded and flexible arms, and neither triangular nor pointed - it shares somehow the same appearance as the Linckia species. Your specimen looks very much like the "sandstars" of the Paxillosida order, with its distinct flat surface and digging ossicles (it may be an Astropecten, but I don't master this genus enough to be definitive). As it appears to be a souvenir, I think it has been dyed (like on this picture).
Here are my reasons : why did you think it was an Ophidiaster ophidianus ? Regards, FredD (talk) 08:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I thought that this is Ophidiaster ophidianus because of this picture File:Capo Gallo Ophidiaster ophidianus.jpg. It looked the same for me; but I'm not an expert. And thanks! DenesFeri (talk) 14:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Please do not remove warnings

 Biopics 18:54, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, your talk page seems to be off, how could I talk with you ? I don't really like your automatic threatening messages. All the pictures you point at just need to get the right {{own}} template instead of the explanation in French, there is no big deal. Regards, FredD (talk) 03:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

These are not threats, it is just commons policy. The images were uploaded as a 'gift' (don). If you are Philippe Boujon, then please say so on your user page, if not let Philippe Boujon send a general agreement to use his images to OTRS. Regards.  Biopics 07:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I already had this conversation a hundred times with other contributors, but let's have it again. I have been working with Philippe for years, and my account in then somehow shared, as I upload more pictures from him than from me. There are over 700 pictures from Philippe on Wiki Commons, and we can definiteny not list them all to send a form for each of them. Hence I am just putting the "own" template, but many Commons admins have already been in contact with him in order to verify his consent and awareness. Tell me if you have any better realistic idea... Cheers, FredD (talk) 11:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Then the conversation was not done properly. 700 files is not that much. A bot could change them (e.g. checking for author name). A single OTRS number could cover them all (talk to the OTRS people, they may assign a token for files by Phillippe and only when uploaded by yourself...). This would cover future uploads as well. This is not necessarily a job you would have to do all by yourself (check with bot-owners). The {{own}} template is definitely not correct. Such quality gifts of non-wiki users are of course very valuable, but the correct procedure has to be followed. Regards.  Biopics 13:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so I just write to OTRS and I copy what you said ? Regards, FredD (talk) 15:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

300 edits

When you get your OTRS number, if you don't want to update your own pages, contact user GreenGiant who seems to be the most savvy with bot-changes to files of the admins I've "met" so far. Sorry about the hassle. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Good news, the emails from your friends have been received but there is a little bit of uncertainty about copyright. I'm sure it will be resolved sometime soon. Once that is done, leave me a message on my talkpage and we will sort out the tagging, unless Mdann52 does it. Just for clarification, I am neither a bot operator nor an admin, I just happen to have clicked the right buttons on a semi-automated mechanism. Green Giant (talk) 18:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Green Giant. But what do you mean by "a little bit of uncertainty about copyright" ? I have not told about it... What can we do to help ? Thanks for your help, FredD (talk) 09:29, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Well I wouldn't want to intrude on work by another OTRS agent but basically it appears there are three names claiming copyright rather than the two you mentioned. Hopefully it will be cleared up soon and don't worry if anything gets deleted - it can easily be restored. Green Giant (talk) 22:04, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Three names ? How could I see this ? Maybe Philippe sent his request twice, I'll ask him... Thanks ! FredD (talk) 09:28, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Cymo quadrilobatus Réunion.JPG

File:Cymo quadrilobatus Réunion.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!

Moros y Cristianos 15:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Categories

Bonjour Fred. Can you please only categorize species under the Genus species category, and not also under the Genus category? That's redundant categorization and not allowed. Merci. Moros y Cristianos 13:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, there is actually no redundancy : I just created the genus category after adding the picture, and forgot to remove the family category. But when I put a picture of a species I always use the lowest level of taxonomic category that does exist already on Commons (sometimes nothing lower than the phylum). Regards, FredD (talk) 16:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Non, non. Je pense que vous ne me comprenez pas. L'existence de catégories n'est pas pertinent. Pour une espèce, utilisez toujours la catégorie de l'espèce, rien d'autre dans l'arbre taxonomique. Si elle n'existe pas encore, et vous ne savez pas comment le faire vous-même, ne vous inquiétez pas. Un spécialiste va passer tôt ou tard et construire les pièces manquantes de l'arbre taxonomique.

Cordialement Moros y Cristianos 17:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Donc quand la catégorie de l'espèce n'existe pas je dois laisser la photo sans catégorie ? Et que faire quand l'identification par photo ne peut pas aller plus loin que la famille, par exemple ? FredD (talk) 19:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

See File:Cymo quadrilobatus Réunion.JPG. If you are confident that it is Cymo quadrilobatus, then add category Category:Cymo quadrilobatus; but not Category:Cymo too which is redundant. If you are not sure about the species but confident on genus, then use Category:Cymo. Similarly you can use the lowermost level on which you are confident with the ID; but no need to add a higher level too which is redundant. For instructions on creating new categories, see COM:CATJee 02:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

In fact, my idea is that there are more chances that someone creates the genus (or family) category than the species, so this way the picture can be found by browsing the categories even if the species category does not exist (otherwise I receive automatic messages because my pictures have no valid category). Then, when I see that a lower category is created (or when I create it myself, which is far more common), I delete the upper category. Am I doing any harm ? I don't think it is very realistic to wait for people to create categories for all the species of marine worms... And even for crabs. FredD (talk) 10:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

See Commons:Categories#Why_over-categorization_is_a_problem. (BTW, creating categories and linking to parent is not so difficult. For example, I created Category:Aethaloessa calidalis and Category:Aethaloessa for this moth.) Jee 12:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It depends on your standards in creating categories : if you want to create proper taxonomic categories with all the useful links, it takes more time. And even more if it need to create the genus, family, ordo, class etc... (try it with worms or cyanobacteria !). There are only 3 field pictures of cyanobacteria from the Phormidiaceae family, and all three were uploaded by myself : I did not have time enough to create genus and species category for each of them (and you know as well as me that nobody else will), but I wanted people to be able to find them : with the family category, it is possible and easy. And the argument of the overfilling of parent categories is not very accurate for taxonomic groups of rare sea creatures : I think under-categorization is more often the problem (I have been categorizing hundreds of pictures of marine species that had no taxinomic mention just because the species category did not exist, including properly identified museum specimens). So every time the species category does not exist, there are little chances to overfill the genus or family : we are not dealing with cats and dogs pictures here. I have already created many hundreds categories, but I can't create them at the same time for the thousands of pictures I add (even if I do try to), all the more that they would often need to create all the upper categories as well. Creating 30 categories for 5 pictures of foraminifera or worms is quite time-eating. And obviously, it is useless to wait for somebody else to create them : I have been contributing since 2006, and I know that I am nearly alone for marine biology as soon as you move slightly away from common aquarium fish. Hence, I am sorry I really see no more satisfactory option than how I am currently doing, knowing that most of my pictures actually have only one valid category at a time, are easy to find, overfill no category and bother nobody. But if you find arguments to convince me to do it in a better way, I'm still open ; besides, feel free to create the >1000 categories that are needed to cetegorize all my pictures at the lowest taxonomic level (with all the needed scientific references), and I swear I will have them all categorized. Regards, FredD (talk) 13:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

See File:Cymo quadrilobatus Réunion.JPG. It has only to cats with red links; one to species and other to genus which is not good. There is no need to populate all links by you while creating categories. Just add a link to the parent and save. If the parent doesn't exists, do the same think for it. Finally you end-up with no more red links. :) Jee 15:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It is only because you just created these categories (just before all links but the family were red) : I fixed it now, and added the scientific references to the categories. Once you do all the other genera of the family, you can remove the useless categories from my pictures with just one click. Thanks for help on this group and cheers, FredD (talk) 17:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you stop whining and start doing some work here. It's because of guys like you that I stopped doing maintenance. I've created thousands of categories with my current and dito with my previous account, 99% of those in marine biology. Don't pretend to be something you are not.  Biopics 08:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

2015

Tous mes voeux pour toi et ta famille. Tu devrais venir plus souvent en VI. Il y a quelques détails de procédure à intégrer mais tu y sera toujours très bien reçu. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Merci beaucoup Didier, et bonne année à toi aussi, avec tous mes vœux de réussite sur tous tes différents projets ! Pour les VI je suis encore un peu timide, et je n'y envoie que les photos vraiment exceptionnelles, mais si ça marche j'essaierai de le faire plus souvent. Là j'ai changé le scope en "H. picta predating", ça suffit ? Sinon je ne sais pas si tu es retourné voir, mais mes deux articles d'inventaire faunistique progressent bien : je suis arrivé à m'associer avec pas mal de photographes maintenant, et celui sur la Réunion devient une référence sur l'île, et commence à être respecté par les universitaires du coin (une première pour un article Wiki en biologie !). Un de mes projets pour cette année serait d'essayer de te faire venir quelques temps au MNHN pour faire des photos à la zoothèque, où on a un bon paquet d'holotypes très rares. Malheureusement, l'administration ici est d'une inertie désespérante, je ne ne suis pas encore arrivé à trouver un interlocuteur compétent à l'administration pour les activité wikipédiennes... Le Muséum avait raté le train de l'Encyclopédie à l'époque de Buffon, il est en train de rater celui de Wikipédia, qui aurait pourtant pu être un moyen formidable de valoriser les collections et de faire de la vraie vulgarisation. J'ignore les moyens dont le projet Phoebus est doté, ça pourrait peut-être aider. Bref, c'est une énième chimère que je caresse, mais ça serait cool ! Encore tous mes voeux, et à bientôt ! FredD (talk) 08:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Pour ta gouverne le budget de Phoebus et de ... zéro euro. Tout repose sur le bénévolat. Cette année je compte bien doubler le budget et de m'augmenter d'autant. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

C'est bien ce que je craignais ! On verra si je trouve des interlocuteurs de bonne volonté ici. Bonne soirée malgré le deuil du jour... FredD (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Comment Very good image but the scope could be improved.

By putting the animal's name here suppose that's the best description we have. This is not the case File:Hymenocera picta.jpg is a better candidate because the animal has been in full. I suggest the following scope: ''[[: Category:Hymenocera picta|Hymenocera picta]] '', portrait --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC).

I had this other one in mind indeed, which is very beautiful too and displays a lateral view. But for the mode of predation, the new one is better... Can I let you chose the most appropriated scope ? Thanks and bonne année, FredD (talk) 10:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

You can use the term "with prey." Your scope can be: ''[[: Category:Hymenocera picta |Hymenocera picta]] '', with prey --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

•  Support Ok Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Common sea star (Archaster typicus).jpg

This media may be deleted.

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

1989 16:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi 1989. Have you tried clicking on the "source" link ? It works perfectly well for me. And the FlickR bot has flagged the picture as suitable. Hence, please remove your banners, thanks. FredD (talk) 22:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

It was me who fixed it. :) Jee 03:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I didn't check the history. Thanks ! FredD (talk) 07:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support Precious image. Thibaut120094 (talk) 10:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
•  Support High-valued picture, of course! Totodu74 (talk) 10:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
•  Support The picture quality isn't very good (especially colors), but the subject is wonderful. - Bzh-99 (talk) 10:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
•  Support First photograph of the species in the wild, found today thanks to Wikipedia. A symbol. -- Ncoden (talk) 12:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
•  Support remarkable story , precious image--Toyotsu (talk) 13:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
•  Support High-valued picture--Adri08 (talk) 13:38, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
•  Support First picture of the species in the wild, that makes this picture inestimable - and it's also beautiful. --Catarella (talk) 20:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Palauenc05 (talk) 08:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Opheodesoma spectabilis

I took the picture in the ocean off Hawaii. My original description was 'Conspicuous Sea Cucumber (Opheodesoma spectabilis), Coconut Island, Hawaii'. Someone else changed the text, but the picture was taken in Hawaii, and many were seen.Wmpearl (talk) 04:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for your answer. We were struggling with other specialists vecause no species of this genus had ever been observed in California, so now I understand why ! I'll change the settings, thank you. And congrats for your beautiful pictures ! All the best, FredD (talk) 08:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:31, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support Very good --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Palauenc05 (talk) 13:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

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

review

 Support Good choice --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Palauenc05 (talk) 13:19, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Etoile de mer

Elle va passer; mais si tu as le temps fait un petit message à -Llez qui est un bon naturaliste et qui a très bon esprit, en lui disant que tu attends ses informations et les rajoutera. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:47, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

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

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:44, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support Very Good. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

• temporary  Oppose Interesting specimen, but sorry: Neither geocoded nor any information on the locality (criterion 5). Also some information about size (in the caption or a scale) would be useful (size also lacking in the other two nominations). --Llez (talk) 16:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  ** Support Ok with locality --Llez (talk) 14:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
•  Support - I don't believe that geocoding (criteria says geocoded when relevant) ads anything to this specific image. A scalebar would be nice of course but even without it the image is usefull and it certainly is the most valuable in this specific scope. Natuur12 (talk) 20:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
•  Support - Size could be useful, but geocoding should not be overdone. IMO, here it's not necessary. --Palauenc05 (talk) 13:27, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment Yes geocoding is not necessary and I didn't insist on it, but some information, where the specimen comes from, would be useful --Llez (talk) 18:01, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment I've written to the author, and will add these informations asap. Thanks, FredD (talk) 09:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Result: 4 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

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

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

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

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:06, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

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

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:06, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

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

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:05, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Comment We must choose only one category per scope. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I reduced to 1 scope FredD (talk) 19:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:16, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

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

review

 Comment We must choose only one category per scope. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

 CommentOw... I read that "An image can be considered valued within more than one scope. This photograph, for instance, is valued within the scopes The Kaaba and Tawaf." ? FredD (talk) 07:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

So: you can submit your image twice, each time with a different scope pointing to a single category. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

•  Info Cela me rappelle cette image qui était nominée pour deux scopes différents, cela marche en effet, par contre lorsque les nominations ont été fermées, le BOT n'a pas été capable de sortir la deuxième de cette page, et j'ai été notifié plusieurs fois (User talk:Christian Ferrer/Archive3) de la promotion de mon image, elle-meme taguée autant de fois, et ce jusqu'à ce que Archaeodontosaurus la sorte manuellement de la page des candidates. Je ne sais pas si le problème a été résolu, donc attendez vous à de petites surprises pas très méchantes. -- Christian Ferrer 17:10, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, j'ai réduit à 1 scope, et je la remettrai en lice le moment venu. FredD (talk) 19:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Bien n'oubli pas le nom vernaculaire en anglais quand il existe.

•  Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

•  Request Not geocoded. A studio photo? -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
• Temporary  Oppose. Not geocoded. -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
• I think that geocoding is not mandatory for this label, especially when there is no background... I can't see the point of geocoding a picture displaying an organ. The place was "somewhere in the Ermitage lagoon of Réunion island". FredD (talk) 17:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Place information exist in description and just an organ of animal on photo. Oppose removed. -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

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!

Affected:

• File:Panneau RNMR.jpg

Yours sincerely, Yann (talk) 18:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Live Monetaria moneta (money cowry) - Réunion island lagoon.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:02, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:56, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

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

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:14, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:54, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Post-larvae of Zebrasoma desjardinii (ringed tang).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:18, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:07, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

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

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:20, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

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

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:21, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:02, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:18, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

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

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:15, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:18, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

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

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:29, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:18, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Comment this picture is small resolution but it displays the complete specie, IMHO Ezarateesteban 22:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:05, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

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

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Male Chromis viridis (Green Damselfish) in courtship display.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Hi, we would like to use your photo of paracentrotus lividus profil.JPG in our publication for children. We would like a written permission to say that we can use the image in our book. Kindly email me at a.brown@carlongpublishers.com. Thanks Carlong Publishers (talk) 19:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

File:La Part-Dieu depuis Saint-Paul.JPG

File:La Part-Dieu depuis Saint-Paul.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!

JeanBono (talk) 12:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Comment Look at the change in the scope. We must attach the scope to category or better at the gallery.
•  Support Usefull --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
  •  Info Vernacular name added (and thanks for nomination) --Llez (talk) 17:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:07, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

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

review

 Info Scope properly formatted and vernacular name added (and thanks for nomination) --Llez (talk) 17:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

•  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:04, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:07, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Portrait de Michel Foucault.jpg

File:Portrait de Michel Foucault.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

Benoît Prieur (d) 10:02, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support Isn't this known as a parrot fish? Charles (talk) 15:29, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Tri-color Parrotfish ; useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:32, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:08, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Category:Tripneustes pileolus

Fred, please don't blank category pages as that might be unseen for weeks. If an empty cat is to be deleted add {{speedy|empty}}, if it is a misspelled dupe of an existing one add {{bad name|correct name of the cat}}, thank you. --Achim (talk) 12:07, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for this : I just did not know how to do it and did not have enough time to search... Regards, FredD (talk) 12:14, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

 Comment Can we have some English description - like curryfish or sea cucumber please. Charles (talk) 10:53, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Also, needs geocoding. Charles (talk) 11:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

The description is available in the file page... What do you need more ? FredD (talk) 16:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Just until English added. Charles (talk) 13:47, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@Charlesjsharp: what is missing? --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:15, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

 Support Perfect now. The old version may still have been in my cache. Charles (talk) 09:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:17, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:21, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

•  Info Lacks geocoding! --Llez (talk) 10:40, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment Lacks English name. Charles (talk) 13:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose I hope it's not my machine, but I can see no English name. Charles (talk) 20:18, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Maybe try looking inside the code : it is written in 3 languages, "Mauritian gregory". English name validated by Fishbase. FredD (talk) 20:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

 Support Maybe try putting it in scope when you nominate please. Charles (talk) 11:14, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Only a handful of species do have an English name, and these have absolutely no consistency neither official recognizion (except for birds). Most of these names, when they exist, are gratuitous and ambiguous, often shared by many unrelated species, while some species have ten different names depending on location or context. This is why I have problems at using it in an encyclopedic context... Thanks for understanding. FredD (talk) 22:52, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree that there is a problem with some species, but the Wikipedia article which you edited had just the one English name and you can always add others in the article. I am guessing, but I suspect dive guides would use the name Mauritian gregory. For me Jamaica poses a problem, because the locals have their own names for many birds! Charles (talk) 11:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:30, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Comment - As a thumbnail, File:Hyastenus bispinosus (Arrow crab) on Aglaophenia cupressina (Stinging hydroid).jpg seems clearest (that's the same creature, right?). After that, I'm not convinced File:Aglaophenia cupressina, Lizard.jpg, because it's lit, isn't clearer than the nominee. Your comments, please. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

It is more detailed indeed as it is a close-up, but it does not display the general shape of the animal, and it shows reproductive sacks that are not a common feature. Moreover, it was taken at night and does not show the surroundings, hence is not a completely in situ picture. I took this one precisely because there was no good picture of the whole colony, the previous best being this one, but low res as you noticed. FredD (talk) 20:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. But there remains the question of whether the other picture, though low-res, looks better at thumbnail size because it's lit. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:47, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Then this is purely subjective. I took this picture because I thought that the other pictures did not provide a sufficiently pertinent image of the species, but you are allowed to think otherwise. FredD (talk) 22:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure, and one point in this photo's favor is that the animal is in the foreground. Can someone else please comment on which of this picture or File:Aglaophenia cupressina, Lizard.jpg is more useful as a thumbnail and why? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Aglaophenia cupressina, Lizard.jpg seems more valuable, but I'm not an expert. Charles (talk) 11:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I've just redefined my thumbnails to 400px and that picture seems to look a bit more useful at that size, because it's lit up, although what gives me pause is that I see more details in this photo. So I'll wait a day and see if there are any more comments before voting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

•  Oppose - I'm still not completely sure, but I'm acting on the basis that the other photo, being better lit, is in that respect more valuable, though in other respects, this photo is more valuable. It would be best for the relevant article to use both photos as thumbnails. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

If it is only about light, it is easy to edit the picture... FredD (talk) 05:42, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Please do it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:41, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done FredD (talk) 20:12, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

 Support - Now best in scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:01, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:03, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Deleted content

---

Hello FredD/Archives jusqu'en 2019, the following content you uploaded violates one or more of our policies and therefore has been or will soon be deleted:

File:Logo Gonzaï.jpg

The Wikimedia Commons (this website) only hosts media files with a realistic educational purpose and that can be used for any purpose, including:

• use in any work, regardless of content
• creation of derivative works
• commercial use
• free distribution

See Commons:Licensing for the copyright policy on Wikimedia Commons, and Commons:Image casebook for some specific examples. Some other Wikimedia projects have different licensing policies. For example, the English Wikipedia allows fair use of sounds and photographs. This is not the case on Wikimedia Commons; "fair use" materials are not acceptable here.

Please make sure that you only upload educational content you have created yourself, those which are out of copyright, or those for which you have the required permission for the work to be used in all the ways described above. Please note that derivative works of copyrighted material are also considered copyrighted. Again, please read through Commons:Licensing, which is quite crucial, to understanding how Wikimedia Commons works. Thanks for your contribution, and please do leave me a message if you have further questions.

Yours sincerely, Dereckson (talk) 10:57, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support - Useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Zoppo59 (talk) 16:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

File tagging File:Asterodiscides truncatus.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Asterodiscides truncatus.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Asterodiscides truncatus.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

Smooth O (talk) 13:58, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Comment You must link the scope to the Wikimedia category containing the picture, not to a wikipedia article. In addition you must add the vernacular name, Striped Paper Bubble, in parenthesis and you should add also "living animal", for we have photos of the shell alone, too. --Llez (talk) 18:36, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

•  Done --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:04, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
•  Support Best i scope --Llez (talk) 15:22, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:17, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:12, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:21, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

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!

Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 17:38, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

File:Thordisa sp. 2.jpg

File:Thordisa sp. 2.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!

Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:37, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Monachaster sanderi.jpg

File:Monachaster sanderi.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!

Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:41, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Seriaster regularis.jpg

File:Seriaster regularis.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!

Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Pavona explanulata possible.jpg

File:Pavona explanulata possible.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!

Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:43, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Holothuria tubulosa Banyuls.jpg

File:Holothuria tubulosa Banyuls.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!

Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:45, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Tsingoni minaret.jpg

File:Tsingoni minaret.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!

Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Prionocidaris baculosa.jpg

File:Prionocidaris baculosa.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!

Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Sibogaster nieseni.jpg

File:Sibogaster nieseni.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!

Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:49, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Bathyceramaster careyi.jpg

File:Bathyceramaster careyi.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!

Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:49, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Ceramaster pointsurae.jpg

File:Ceramaster pointsurae.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!

Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:50, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Paulasterias tyleri.jpg

File:Paulasterias tyleri.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!

Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:51, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Paulasterias mcclaini.JPG

File:Paulasterias mcclaini.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!

Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:51, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Fromia elegans.jpeg

File:Fromia elegans.jpeg 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!

Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:51, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Alpheus dolerus.jpg

File:Alpheus dolerus.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!

Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:53, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Pteraeolidia ianthina Maldives.JPG

File:Pteraeolidia ianthina Maldives.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!

Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:57, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Thelenota ananas Maldives.jpg

File:Thelenota ananas Maldives.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!

Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:57, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Acaudina molpadioides.jpg

File:Acaudina molpadioides.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!

Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:58, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Araeosoma thetidis insitu.tif

File:Araeosoma thetidis insitu.tif 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!

Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:59, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

COM:OTRS

Greetings: You are correct that I have nominated a substantial number of images you uploaded. That is because you have a consistent habit of uploading images created by other people without providing COM:OTRS permission. I do know that you know what COM:OTRS is, because others of your uploads have this permission, with appropriate tags applied. However, you cannot upload the works of other people - no matter how beautiful or important - without their permission. Please go through your images and provide COM:OTRS permission for the images you have uploaded. No one is exempt from this requirement at Commons; in the same way that no reasonable individual ignores traffic laws to drive however they please on the road. None of these would have ever come up for review except that you uploaded the works of others. Commons instructions are clear about copyright. Please read COM:L if you have any questions. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:20, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Dear Ellin Beltz. I have been uploaded rare scientific pictures for more than ten years on Wiki Commons, and I never had any problem regarding authorship. There are many professionel scientists who send me some pictures to put on Wiki because they don"t know how to do or don't have enough time. It is for the same reason that I don't dare bothering them with OTRS requests which are extremely complicated, time-eating and off-putting. I have done OTRS for my main contributors, who are further committed in what I'm doing, but I really can't ask tens of university professors to fulfill tens of forms for this. Moreover, there are some of them I've not been speaking with since many years (some of them are retired, and there are also 2 ex-girlfriends among them...). Every Commons bureaucrat I've been discussing with have agreed I can do like this and that this account can be the warrant of the pictures' good authorship. If you prefer, you can consider this account not as the account of a person uploading other people's work, but as the account of a scientific project involving many different photographers but always posting pictures under the "own work" license. That's why everybody has his/her sub-account they can survey easily. I can give you everybody's e-mail if you want to check by yourself, but be sure if there were the least problem with these pictures it would be known already by now. Best regards, FredD (talk) 16:50, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Hélas Dura lex, sed lex. Malgré ta bonne foi, ces certificats sont indispensables. Sauf à verser les images seulement pour Wikipedia France où il y a une permissivité: les images ne sont retirées que sur plainte de l’auteur. Je mesure le niveau de ta déception. Peut-être que @Christian Ferrer: aura une idée. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Il y a moyen de les basculer ? Comment veux-tu faire des certificats pour des milliers d'images de dizaines de personnes ? Je me fonde sur le principe de "own work" : ce compte n'est pas celui d'un photographe particulier mais d'une équipe, qui publie tout sous le label "own work". Si un compte qui se fait appeler Archaeodontosaurus arrive à publier des photos signées "Didier Descouens", je ne vois pas pourquoi un "FredD" ne pourrait pas publier de photos signées "Philippe Bourjon"... FredD (talk) 07:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Et si je faisais un OTRS qui englobe sous ma responsabilité toutes les photos que je téléverse ? FredD (talk) 07:47, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Il y a la loi. Les photographies sont une propriété intellectuelle. Il te revient pour COMMONS de prouver par un document que tu as l’agrément du photographe. Voici deux images 1 et 2 la première est de moi aucun problème; le seconde a été versée par Christelle Molinié qui travaille pour le Musée des Augustins de Toulouse. Elle a eu le même problème que toi car elle n'était pas l'auteur. Elle a été dans la nécessite de passer par COM:OTRS. Le terme générique Musée des Augustins n'est pas recevable. Même si les images ont été payée par le musée la propriété intellectuelle est celle du photographe. Pour toi le problème est rendu ingérable par la multiplicité des intervenants; mais c'est le même schéma.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

There are no authorized sub-accounts here. You have listed 26 categories relating to individuals, we need permission from each individual on file via OTRS, and we can make a template with OTRS permission and licensing for use on each of their uploaded works. If you upload one more file without evident proper permission, you may be blocked for doing so.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 14:21, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

There seems some procedural issues. Pinging some admins from the French community who has OTRS access too. PierreSelim, Yann..please look. Jee 07:51, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Archaeodontosaurus said it well, and Ellin do her job. Photos are artworks protected by copyright law, and in order to protect the rights of each authors, our policies requires an evidence that the author has agreed to a publication here under specific licensing terms. This policy is applicable to anybody, whatever the value or quantity of the content. This evidence can be a prior publication available with en explicit free license, or a permission sent to com:OTRS, note that I'm not an OTRS member but at first view I think one permission for each authors should be sufficient. Note also that if you have some difficulty to make the authors to send the permissions and that the images are deleted, then administrators will be happy to restore the images as soon a valid permission is received. It is indeed sad that we requires you these permissions only now, and not just after the uploads, but there are only a few active administrators for a colossal job. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 09:19, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello and thanks. I can understand this, but what I can't understand is why do people delete file without telling the uploaders : if the name of the uploader is given in the file description it's not in order to wipe one's bottom with. I just discover weeks after that several files have already been deleted and that many Wikipedia articles in several languages now have an error message in their infobox instead of a professional picture : how can we tolerate such a stupid thing to happen ? This destroys the volunteer work of people and harms the encyclopedia's credibility for its readers. How many of my files have already been deleted like this without any way for me to know it ? And how many for other honest contributors ? And how can we protect Wiki projects from dumb people who delete files despite regular OTRS or CC license just for pleasure, as Ellin Beltz just did ? I'll try to send a message to every of the tens of contributors who give me their pictures but I'm not sure they will all answer soon or at all : some of them are old and retired, and other I've not been in contact with for many years and may have changed their e-mail, so I'll need time. I'm sure Ellin Beltz could have found more urgent and useful things to do on Commons than harassing me and destroying thousands of hours of volunteer work - otherwise, I have many suggestions (including : learning how to read and not delete files with a proper OTRS or CC license). I still claim sanctions against this anti-collaborative behavior for deleting regular files without asking the relevant people (if you can't read, you just can't be an admin - that's as basic as this), disregarding arguments in discussion and refusal to cooperate. Regards, FredD (talk) 10:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

File(s) "with a proper OTRS or CC license" should not be deleted, but the OTRS permissions has to be displayed on the file pages. If some of your uploads have valid OTRS permissions but not displayed on the files page then they will likely be deleted at a time or another. I suggest to add the more quickly possible the OTRS tag on the file page, but I think it have to be done by a OTRS volonteer. This kind of nomination for deletion is also adequate, if your source is available on the web then the link that you write in the file page has to lead to the web page that contains both the license and the image, not a direct link to the image, in order that we can verify the license. Also if you upload content available somewhere in the web it is good to put the template {{LicenseReview}} in order that someone else confirm the license, example File:Usnea intermedia 301181.jpg. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 12:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Please remain calm and collegial

---

It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks!

  — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 14:12, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Everything's alright. FredD (talk) 14:29, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that. FYI, all of your deleted files are listed as redlinks in your upload log, and you have 94 deleted edits per supercount.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 14:54, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Useful, thanks ! FredD (talk) 15:05, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

File tagging File:N'Gouja 2.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:N'Gouja 2.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

 

  — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 22:04, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

COM:AN/B

---

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections#FredD. This is in relation to an issue with which you may have been involved.

  — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 22:12, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Comment - Not at the link. Please link the Commons category. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:40, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
•  Support Ok now --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

 Comment should add common English name please. Charles (talk) 22:10, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

 DoneFredD (talk) 18:44, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:13, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Commons Delinquent | Commons Delinker

You wrote "What I didn't expect is that now I need to put it back on the tens of articles they were used on before, but for this there is no record" in this edit. Actually, there is a record, generally at Commons Delinquent | Commons Delinker and more specifically at https://tools.wmflabs.org/commons-delinquent/index.php?image=Pentaster_obtusatus.jpg and https://tools.wmflabs.org/commons-delinquent/index.php?image=Nerophis_lumbriciformis_Batz.jpg. I put one back for you in this other edit.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 12:07, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Useful, thanks ! FredD (talk) 13:46, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 14:22, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Assume good faith et respect des autres utilisateurs

Bonjour,

Suite à votre attaque à votre encontre je tiens à vous dire que je me désole que des personnes viennent critiquer des actions faites bénévolement et correctement dans les respect des procédures.

En règle générale on se passe de la demande d'identité en pouvant relier l'adresse courriel à une personne notamment lors d'adresses professionnelles ou institutionnelles. Lorsque cela n'est pas le cas, nous avons différent moyen. Veuillez noter qu'une carte de sport, bibliothèque ou une facture établie au nom de la personne aurait suffit.

Je ne m'attends pas à des excuses de votre part : j'ai cru voir que cela n'était pas votre genre. Cependant, je vous averti que c'est la dernière fois que je tolèrerais de telles attaques. Veuillez aussi prendre connaissance de COM:GOODFAITH et COM:TALK#Communication_good_practice

Cordialement,

--AntonierCH ^(d) 11:55, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Bonjour. Je connais ces pages, j'étais sur Wikipédia bien avant vous et même avant qu'elles soient écrites. Mes mots ont été durs, en effets, et témoignaient de mon énervement. Des mots déplacés, ce n'est pas bien : j'en conviens humblement et demande le pardon. Mais ce que je remarque, c'est que c'est le second avertissement que je reçois pour des mots déplacés, alors que dans cette histoire il y a aussi eu des actions déplacées, autrement plus graves, et qui n'ont fait l'objet d'aucune sanction. La manière dont moi et mes collègues avons été traités, le mépris, la brutalité dont j'a fait l'objet, sont absolument inexcusables, et auraient fait l'objet d'une procédure disciplinaire dans n'importe quelle entreprise ou institution. Je garde une rancœur énorme contre tout ce qui est arrivé, d'autant que j'ai toujours été un contributeur fervent, poli et constructif : je ne me serais jamais attendu à être traité de délinquant et à voir mon travail exterminé méthodiquement sans procès. J'ai réellement songé à quitter l'encyclopédie, et j'ai dû convaincre mes collaborateurs de ne pas le faire. La gestion des conflits sur Commons est absolument honteuse, et le bénévolat n'excuse ni l'amateurisme, ni le mépris, ni le fait de se comporter comme des machines - plus précisément comme des broyeuses à bonnes volontés. Alors reprochez-moi tant que vous voudrez mes mots trop durs : vous avez tout à fait raison. Mais assurez-vous que tous les torts sont punis, à leur juste mesure... Avec mes sentiments attentifs, FredD (talk) 12:09, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Comment It is OK to remove the watermark if mandatory, but I don't know how to without scaling down the picture. FredD (talk) 16:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
•  Support OK now perfect --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:23, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:29, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 SupportJacek Halicki (talk) 20:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:41, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Affichage

Salut Fred, l'affichage du titre est mauvais dans la version precédente j'ai modifier pour Clowns et oeufs à Mayotte.jpg dans se cas l'affichage est parfait ;tu peux te servir de ce modèle pour le futur. Bonne journée. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:30, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello, merci beaucoup ! J'avais remarqué mais je ne savais pas comment corrigé, ça marchait avant... Toute ma gratitude, FredD (talk) 06:45, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Dans modèle tu peux placer les labels à l'interieur du modèle comme ici Arete indicus.JPG. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:18, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Annonce pour émission "Les Témoins d'Outre-Mer" sur France Ô

Dans le cadre de l’émission quotidienne « Les Témoins d’Outre-Mer » diffusée sur France Ô, nous souhaitons nous intéresser aux photographes et à leurs œuvres lors du concours photo organisé par Wikimédia France.

Nous souhaitons vous donner la parole pour nous raconter leurs histoires ! Si vous êtes intéressés, veuillez envoyer un mail à cette adresse : s.zabbah@edentv.fr, en y ajoutant vos coordonnées, votre photo en pièce-jointe et un résumé de votre photo en 10 lignes (date et lieu de la prise, les raisons du choix de cette photo, quelles circonstances etc…)

Nous vous attendons nombreux !

Sébastien Zabbah, journaliste-rédacteur pour « Les Témoins d’Outre-Mer

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:18, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Sixflashphoto (talk) 15:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

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

review

•  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:19, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Sixflashphoto (talk) 15:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Category:Echinostrephus molaris

Bonjour, il y a 3 images dans cette catégorie qui sont nommées Echinostrephus aciculatus, c'est quelle espèce? aciculatus ou molaris? Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:48, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, c'est la catégorisation qui est bonne (j'ai eu la flemme de faire les renommages, désolé). E. aciculatus est ndémique du Pacifique, et plus rare. Merci pour ta vigilance ! FredD (talk) 19:20, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

ok, merci, pas de problème j'ai renomé les fichiers. Bonne soirée. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:48, 3 October 2018 (UTC)