User talk:Jean-Pol GRANDMONT/Archive 2

juste pour vous le dire

Je viens de placer deux de vos photos sur l'article château de Grand-Bigard. Bonne journée--Rosier (talk) 22:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Gallery

Bonjour,

J'ai vu que vous avez régulièrement ajouté une "galerie" dans la description de vos photos, comme ici ( [1] ).

Mais les derniers jours, quelqu'un est en train d'effacer ces galeries. [2], [3], etc, etc... (entre autre, il efface également les titres pour marquer la description, la licence, etc). Je trouve ça étrange qu'on efface tous ces informations ajouté par un autre utilisateur (ajouté par vous dans ce cas), sans commentaire, sans informer, ou sans demander. C'est pourquoi j'ai défait beaucoup de ses changements... Je ne sais pas quels sont les intentions de cet utilisateurs, mais j'ai voulu quand-même faire cette petite remarque sur votre page de discussions, afin que vous poussiez contrôler ce que certains utilisateurs sont en train de faire avec vos images (ou les descriptions), si ça vous intéresse. Cordialement ;-) --LimoWreck (talk) 19:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Fagus sylvatica JPG2a.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments good colour and composition --Böhringer 08:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

License change to File:Relieur JPG01.jpg

In your recent edit to File:Relieur JPG01.jpg, you changed the license tag from cc-by-2.5 to GFDL|cc-by-3.0. It is permissible to add new licenses but, sorry, it is not generally permissible to revoke a license. (See "What if I change my mind?" in the Creative Commons FAQ.) In effect, your edit added a license and now neither can be revoked and anyone can choose which one they prefer. I have listed both licenses in the "Licensing" section for the photo. —Danorton (talk) 13:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Ça, c'est ce que la majorité des administrateurs de Commons veulent nous faire croire ; mais au final, nous sommes tous des « juristes en herbe » qui ne lisons pas assez les licences. Je suis en train d'essayer de te défendre sur Commons talk:Licensing#Prohibit revoking license. →Diti the penguin — 13:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I hope that he doesn't need "defense." My only aim is to help and properly describe the image and its licenses. If I have made a mistake, I am more than happy to correct it. In the instance of File:Relieur JPG01.jpg, the license originally selected was cc-by-2.5 which is a perpetual license. In assigning that license he waived his right to subsequently revoke it. While Commons allows for certain specific restrictions, it doesn't allow for subsequent license revocation. I am happy to provide more information or to be informed with more accurate information. —Danorton (talk) 14:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Je demande à ce que la dernière licence soit respectée car c'est mon droit jusqu'à preuve du contraire.

Jean-Pol GRANDMONT 21:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The first license you agreed to was cc-by-2.5, an English-language license detailed here. This is a perpetual license:

3.   License Grant. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright) license to exercise the rights in the Work...

The license states that you can revoke ("withdraw") the license under certain specific circumstances, but you have not described any such circumstance. I don't intend to criticize you or to defend Commons policy, but only to accurately and fairly reflect the facts. —Danorton (talk) 03:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the meaning of “perpetual” should be taken 100% accurate here. Let's imagine the author publishes his work under a CC-by-nc license. According to you, the fact that this license has near-infinite copyright terms would mean that latter uses of the work under a less restrictive license would be prohibited. Are they, actually? No. For me, what you are trying to do is to interpret the license terms so that you can justify your changes and chose the free license that you like (sorry for the bolded text, I'm not attacking you, I just want to give my text a better impact ;). Maybe I'm wrong, but try to understand what the uploader thinks of your acts. Creative Commons licenses aren't selective based on their level of freedom. PS: oops? :D →Diti the penguin — 06:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not following your argument as it applies in this instance. What's not true here?

1. The author has assigned two licenses to this item, both of which are perpetual and non-revocable.
2. Anyone may use either license.
3. The page truthfully and accurately lists both licenses and indicates that anyone may use the license they prefer.

—Danorton (talk) 20:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Important proposal

I wrote a proposal for equalizing the different picture formats on FPC Please have a look. Best regards --Richard Bartz (talk) 20:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Photographe

Monsieur.

Après avoir découvert votre page sur Commons, je me suis permis de vous inclure dans ma rubrique "D'autres photographes talentueux" sur ma page Commons.

Cordialement.

--ComputerHotline (talk) 17:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

FP promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Laeken Se1aJPG.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Laeken Se1aJPG.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

FP promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Fagus sylvatica Purpurea JPG4a.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fagus sylvatica Purpurea JPG4a.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Morlanwelz-Mariemont

I try to get all the botanical pictures off the park, only in the category:"Parc de Mariemont". This is a subcategory off "Morlanwelz-Mariemont" and "Parks in Belgium". Now the pictures of Morlanwelz-Mariemont wich have nothing to do with the park are drowned. Examples File:Mariemont sporen.JPG, File:Mariemont Splitsing.JPG and File:Mariemont tunnel lijn 30.JPG. In principle there the number of categories of a file should be limited. A picture should either be in the main category or a subcategory but not both.

Smiley.toerist (talk) 08:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Transcluded user templates with embedded license templates

Hi Jean-Pol GRANDMONT,

There is an issue with your user license and Commons policy. I have drafted a post about it here: User:Slaunger/Sandbox/COM:AN message, which I intend to post on COM:AN shortly. Since your user name is mentioned explicitly, I thought you should have a possibility to preview it and possibly correct any factual mistakes. Cheers, --Slaunger (talk) 19:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jean-Pol, Its seems like virtually all users I contact, which have followed the same process is willing to change it such that the templates are in accordance with Commons policy. Therefore it seems unlikely that the policy will be changed, and since you have also asked for assistance to fix your user template, I thought we as well might get started. In relation to that I would like to ask you if it is OK if I create two subpages in your user name space, User:Jean-Pol GRANDMONT/My and User:Jean-Pol GRANDMONT/MyLicense. The first one will basically be a copy of Template:Jean-PolGRANDMONTCredit with the license extracted, and the second one will be the /My user template side by side with the license templates. The latter will be the one you should use in the future using

{{subst:User:Jean-Pol GRANDMONT/MyLicense}}

on your file pages. Once I have made that and you have approved that it looks OK (using a single file page as a test), we could schedule a job at a bot operator replacing all occurances of {{Jean-PolGRANDMONTCredit}} with {{subst:User:Jean-Pol GRANDMONT/MyLicense}} on your 2800 file pages.

If this all seems a little overwhelming, don't dispair. We will do it step by step such that you can follow the process and get a good understanding of the changes I would like to make.

Just reply here. I am watching.

Cheers, --Slaunger (talk) 19:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jean-Pol, I am back and ready. I have now extracted the license template from you user template and placed it in User:Jean-Pol GRANDMONT/Credit. this is a template which will continue to be simply transcluded into your image pages, and you can maintain it centrally. It is used in User:Jean-Pol GRANDMONT/License alongside with a CC-BY-SA-3.0 license. (Note that I selected slightly different subpage names that I originally proposed, I think the names used here are better). Now, in the future you should add your credit template as well as the license by adding

Permission={{subst:User:Jean-Pol GRANDMONT/License}}

in your image pages in the {{Information}} template. As a test I have done this substitution manually in File:Conques JPG03.jpg. Please review if you are satisfied with the result (the substitution first generated two extra line breaks in the permission field, but I have now adjusted your new user templates such that they will not appear again). If you can confirm this kind of change I will make a test run with my bot on 20 of your image files. --Slaunger (talk) 19:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Test run with 20 template substitutions I have checked each one of them and they seem OK. Can I proceed provided I get the bot flag I have requested? --Slaunger (talk) 23:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I have to hold my horse though until a bureaucrat comes by and gives me a bot flag on my bot request. --Slaunger (talk) 20:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jean-Pol, the bot flag has been granted, and I have initiated my first job, which will replace your old user template on 1000 image pages of your this evening. The remaining pages will be done tomorrow. --Slaunger (talk) 20:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Jean-Pol. I am not completely done yet though. I did +1000 replacements yesterday, and 1000 replacements two days ago (I have committed myself to limit the bot to about 1000 edit per day), but there are still 300-400 replacements left (which I anticipate will be done later this evening (if my wife does not turn off my PC again, while it is working - arrrgh )). Once all transclusions of {{Jean-PolGRANDMONTCredit}} has been replaced by the new ones, I would like to nominate it for deletion, just to get rid of it once and for all. --Slaunger (talk) 13:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done with all 2754 template replacements. I will now nominate your old template for deletion. --Slaunger (talk) 19:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Once again thanks!!

http://www.wereldpagina.nl/index.php/Bestand:Bas-Languedoc_Carcassonne.jpg

Photographers Blackbelt

		THE PHOTOGRAPHER'S BLACKBELT
		J'ai l'honneur de vous décerner la Photographers Blackbelt (ceinture noire des photographes) pour vos photos remarquables et excellentes. --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)