User talk:Myrabella/Archive/Archive 2006-2009

Français : Bienvenue sur Commons, Myrabella/Archive/Archive 2006-2009!

le Korrigan →bla 13:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Samois_Bords_de_Seine.JPG

---

Hello, and thank your for sharing your files with Commons. There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. Please remember that all uploads require source, author and license information. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? Thank you. Siebrand 15:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
This message was placed by an automated process. Please go to Commons:Help desk if you need help.

Recréé dans une nouvelle version sous le nom File:Samois Bords de Seine.jpg, avec des informations complètes. --Myrabella (talk) 02:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Panorama Saintes

Bonjour Myrabella. Mea culpa pour File:Panorama Saintes.JPG, elle était en double avec File:File-Panorama Saintes-b.JPG et de moins bonne résolution (j'ai demandé sa suppression). Cordialement, Jack ma (talk) 12:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Pas de problème, ce n'était pas une de mes images, et celle que j'avais versée dans Commons, c'est celle-ci, qui est toujours en place :-D ! J'ai juste mis à jour la galerie de la page "Saintes" pour qu'elle appelle l'image de meilleure qualité. Je te signale cependant que ta demande de suppression est incomplète, le fichier Commons:Deletion requests/File:Panorama Saintes.JPG n'a pas été créé. --Myrabella (talk) 13:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Pourtant j'ai bien obéi à la syntaxe demandée (File:Panorama Saintes.JPG; c'est la 1ère fois que je fais une demande de suppression "lente" ;-) Ce fichier doit-il se créer automatiquement ? Jack ma (talk) 14:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Non, ce fichier ne se crée pas automatiquement. Dans la page Panorama Saintes.JPG, il faut effectuer les 4 actions indiquées dans le cadre bordé de rouge. --Myrabella (talk) 21:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Désolé. Voilà, c'est fait (y compris l'auteur notifié) Jack ma (talk) 06:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Impec ! --Myrabella (talk) 06:41, 15 June 2009 (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:
French Neufchâtel (cheese).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Looks very much OK to me. Fulfills all criteria. Lycaon (talk) 16:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 15:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Scout Salute - a fine image that needs to be geocoded

Hello! No problem, I'll do it if u'll explain how :) --Yarko (talk) 14:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Yarko (talk) 07:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Squatt de page de discussion

Pas de problème, c'est pas gave. Pour remettre les choses dans leur contexte, Heurtelions (talk · contribs) a une tendance assez prononcée à la logorrhée, et je n'avais pas envie de le voir tourner en rond pendant des semaines sur ma page de discussion (il en a une). Cordialement, Coyau (talk) 11:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Samois Bords de Seine.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 focus, exposure, lighting, composition, with location. --Iotatau 16:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Geocode

Hi, Myrabella!

Incorrect geolocalization - poor and not the useful information, leading users into error. Correct geolocalization - my fast way into prison. Do You want it  ?

I add word Vinnytsia into description.

With best regards, --George Chernilevsky (talk) 07:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello George, Thanks for the adjuncts and be sure that I don't want you to be jailed ;-) Best regards, --Myrabella (talk) 11:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Palais Farnese.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 exposure, sharpness. Not perfect with respect to noise and composition, but certainly good enough to deserve quality image status. --Johannes Robalotoff 20:06, 9 September 2009 (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:
Selles-sur-Cher (cheese).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Nice one. I like the way you geo-referenced. Fulfils all criteria and is by far best in its category. Lycaon (talk) 21:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 09:20, 12 September 2009 (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:
Palazzo Farnese (Rome).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Best in scope. Though this may be a close competitor, a detailed colour image prevails for me. Lycaon (talk) 09:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 11:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Valued image candidates/Kielich Wojciecha.JPG

Thank you very much :-) Albertus teolog (talk) 14:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• You're welcome! Thank you for having proposed this interesting review. --Myrabella (talk) 22:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Piazza sant Ignazio Rome.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Comment The crop is a bit odd, would it be possible to center the doorway a bit more and remove the people in the lower left corner making out? Tiptoety 03:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC) Thanks for your advice. I uploaded a new version, slightly cropped and without the couple of lovers in the corner. --Myrabella 22:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC) Amazing. How did you do that? -- H005 19:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC) Nicely photoshopped :) -Herbythyme 12:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

CHIAB

Bonjour, C'est ma petite fille. Yann (talk) 00:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 01 Sienne vue de San Clemente.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  CommentThere are some artefacts on the upper right corner and the left edge in the sky --Berthold Werner 16:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC) Thanks for your eye! Artefacts removed; new version uploaded. --Myrabella 17:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC) Ok now --Berthold Werner 18:02, 4 October 2009 (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:
Cathédrale Notre-Dame et Saint-Privat de Mende (exterior).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Today is assymmetric cathedrals' day... --Eusebius (talk) 16:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 17:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Rosettes

I agree with you, but I want to wait until the conclusion of the discussion. Albertus teolog (talk) 23:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Scope changed

Hi, I changed the scope from Shona witch doctor to Shona traditional healer. The word 'Sangoma' seems to be rather geographically limited (My wife, who is Zambian, had never encountered it). Lycaon (talk) 11:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Changing the scope for "Shona traditional healer" was my suggestion in fact and you guessed it right—excuse me if I was unclear. Reading a bit for this review, I have learned that "Shona traditional healers" are called "n'anga". More words on the VIC review page... Regards, --Myrabella (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Building scope

Bonjour Myrabella, En parcourant préalablement les recommandations édictées dans les "VI rules" j’ai effectivement noté cette préconisation. J’aimerais juste ajouter quelques points :
- Les règles précisent « in general » ce qui laisse néanmoins une (petite) marge de manœuvre.
- Il existe un certain nombre d’autres exemples de VI « buildings by night ». Ou la règle s'applique à tout le monde ou elle ne s'applique pas.
- L’objet de cette photo était de restituer l’éclairage qui met en valeur ce splendide bâtiment et qui donne une certaine solennité aux ombres des gardes qui se détachent dans la lumière. Tout ceci n’est possible que de nuit. Les scintillements de la Tour Eiffel sont-ils visibles en plein jour ? Le soin tout particulier apporté à l’éclairage de l’Empire State Building ne pourra-t-il donc jamais faire l’objet d’une VI ?
Bien cordialement, --Root66 (talk) 08:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Bonjour Root66,
En réalité, le fait qu'il s'agisse d'une photo nocturne n'est pas la seule raison... Selon moi, File:Greece Parliament.jpg illustre mieux le sujet car la photo étant de jour, on voit mieux le bâtiment ; mais de plus, je trouve le cadrage meilleur, plus centré sur le bâtiment qui est l'objet du "scope", sans élément parasite (critère 3.2 "Absence d'éléments distrayants ou non pertinents" — dans la photo nominée, le lampadaire ajoute à l'ambiance nocturne mais gêne la vision du bâtiment, AMHA) ; on y voit mieux le drapeau grec (identification immédiatement plus claire) et l'horizon y est droit. Certes, la qualité technique n'est pas le critère primordial pour une VI, mais cela pèsera dans le choix s'il y a plusieurs candidats potentiels dans la catégorie. Ne citer que la raison "Photo de nuit" était de ma part une façon courtoise de décliner la nomination, mais je peux ajouter les précisions ci-dessus dans la page de revue si tu le souhaites. Tu peux bien sûr y ajouter tes arguments également, et même ouvrir une "évaluation d'images en compétition (MVR)" avec ta photo et sa concurrente pour recueillir plus d'avis. Avant cela et si tu en as la possibilité, je te suggèrerais volontiers de verser une nouvelle version de ta photo en corrigeant son inclination et en la retaillant pour couper la grille au premier plan. En restant en tout écoute,
Bien cordialement, --Myrabella (talk) 11:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

PS sur les éclairages de la Tour Eiffel : une image récente libre de droits représentant la Tour Eiffel éclairée de nuit en sujet principal ne pourrait par être présentée comme VIC car ces jeux de lumière sont protégés par le droit d'auteur et il n'y a pas de liberté de panorama en France : il faut donc une autorisation spéciale :-( --Myrabella (talk) 11:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Merci beaucoup Myrabella pour ces précisions. J'adhère sans problème à ton point de vue et je vais en rester là en ce qui concerne cette photo... J'ai un certain nombre d'autres photos qui méritent que l'on s'y attarde un peu plus... Par contre, j'aimerais quand même enfoncer le clou en ce qui concerne la règle de pseudo-interdiction de photos de bâtiments de nuit, qui n'est pas appliquée à la lettre, qui AMHA n'est pas justifiée, mais surtout qui donne un sentiment de flou et donc d'injustice, in fine, à ces évaluations... car encore une fois il existe un certain nombre d'exemples contraires. Est-il possible de faire remonter ce point ? --Root66 (talk) 11:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Pour ma part, je trouve cette préconisation raisonnable. Les images de valeur distinguent les images qui ont la plus grande valeur documentaire parmi toutes celles existant au moment de la nomination sur le même domaine dans Commons. Ce ne sera pas forcément la plus jolie, mais celle qui apporte l'information la plus complète, à la fois par l'image elle-même et par sa description et sa catégorisation. Pour un bâtiment, une photo de jour permet "en général" de mieux discerner la structure d'ensemble de l'édifice et les détails architecturaux, ainsi que les couleurs réelles des matériaux utilisés - pierre, bois, verre, métal, revêtement, couverture, etc. De plus, comme tu le remarques toi-même, les mots "en général" de la préconisation laissent la possibilité de débattre le cas échéant. Mais peut-être pourrais-tu t'essayer encore quelquefois à nominer de bonnes images bien documentées, après avoir vérifié les images existantes dans le domaine choisi ? Tu es en tout cas le bienvenu, comme tout contributeur ! --Myrabella (talk) 06:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Chelles ile Refuge.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good. -Cayambe 10:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Demande de compléments pour Commons:Valued image candidates/Elena de Borbón y Grecia.jpg

Bonjour Grez,
Merci d'avoir proposé la nomination en image de valeur de Commons:Valued image candidates/Elena de Borbón y Grecia.jpg. Cependant, l'image nominée ne remplit pas actuellement tous les critères demandés pour pouvoir être promue. 1/ "Scope" : pourrais-tu le libeller plus simplement, par exemple en "Elena de Borbón y Grecia", indication qui titre les articles espagnols et français et qui serait suffisante (critère n°2 "Est nominée comme étant l'image de plus grande valeur pour un domaine convenablement générique." ? 2/ Il manque la géolocalisation (critère n°5. Est géocodée, lorsque cela est pertinent. Toutes les images sont supposées être géocodées à moins que cela ne soit pas approprié. et ici, avoir le géocodage serait approprié). En te remerciant par avance, et en restant à ta disposition si tu as besoin --Myrabella (talk) 08:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Voilà, c'est fait ! Désolé de ne pas avoir vu les remarques plus tôt et merci pour ton message :-) Gregory Zeier (talk) 21:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Canal Saint-Martin.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 To atmosphere --Archaeodontosaurus 20:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 01 vue Paris depuis Notre-Dame.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good. --Cayambe 19:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cham des Bondons Puech Mariette.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very good. --Cayambe 19:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Eschino d'Aze et puechs des Bondons.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, and even excellent if there weren't the small burned highlights on the stones in the foreground. --Cayambe 16:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Valued image candidates/Ettringite.jpg

Merci de m’avoir fait cette remarque, je crois avoir compris que je devais mettre « Etringite » dans le champ Scope mais… je ne sais pas très bien pourquoi. Je ne viens pas dans les « images de Valeur » car j’ai du mal avec l’anglais, et les traductions automatiques donnent parfois des résultats aléatoires. En tout cas çà m’a donné l’occasion de parler français sur Commons, Bien amicalement Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Encore quelques essais et je devrais y arriver. Je te remercie de ton aide; je viens de découvir grace à toi, que certaines pagse sont effectivement traduites en français, ce qui devrais m'aider, mais pas me rajouter les neurones qui me manquent. Je vais fair un nouvel essai. Je ne manquerai pas de venir voir les photos naturalistes les seules que je puisse évaluer. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

MVR

In the MVR for the PitStop, could I vote? Fale (talk) 00:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but not for your image, as you remain the nominator and the author :-). VI rules say: "neither the nominator nor the original image author may vote." Info: In a MVR, there is a promotion only if there is a single winner with a score of +1 or more. In all other cases, all candidates are closed as undecided. --Myrabella (talk) 00:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Basilique Saint-Pierre Vatican dome.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Ok. --Berthold Werner 09:06, 4 December 2009 (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:
Crematoria in concentration camps.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support I know that there can be only one VI in a scope, but for me there are two in this MVR which have equal value, though due to slightly different reasons. I'll let someone else give the deciding vote(s). Wolf (talk) 23:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Support I think the bones illustrate better the horrifying usage of these miserable things. I'm hesitant with File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-H26996, KZ Dachau, Verbrennungsofen.jpg because of its too late (incorrect?) date stamp as was pointed out. -- MattiPaavola (talk) 18:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

MVR scores:

1. Fale - Monaco - 162.jpg: -1
2. Bundesarchiv Bild 183-H26996, KZ Dachau, Verbrennungsofen.jpg: -1
3. Bones of anti-Nazi German women still are in the crematoriums in the German concentration camp at Weimar, Germany.jpg: +2 <--
4. Auschwitz Crematorium.JPG: +1
=>
File:Fale - Monaco - 162.jpg: Declined.
File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-H26996, KZ Dachau, Verbrennungsofen.jpg: Declined.
File:Bones of anti-Nazi German women still are in the crematoriums in the German concentration camp at Weimar, Germany.jpg: Promoted. <--
File:Auschwitz Crematorium.JPG: Declined.

--Myrabella (talk) 22:15, 6 December 2009 (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:
Campo de' Fiori (Rome).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Best version in the scope IMO. -- Der Wolf im Wald (talk) 20:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Myrabella (talk) 21:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

:) - regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• You're welcome! I didn't know there was a volcano there, so thanks to you for letting me learn it :-) Regards, --Myrabella (talk) 14:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
  • It was interesting. To start with hard to spot and then once I had spotted it I could see it from many places nearby! Thanks for spotting more of my copy and paste mistakes too! --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:29, 9 December 2009 (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:
San Clemente in Santa Maria dei Servi (Siena) (exterior).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support all criteria met, best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 23:04, 18 December 2009 (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:
Panning.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Info Nomination suggested by Wolf
•  Request Wrong categorization to be fixed. --Myrabella (talk) 23:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support The hen has unsharp body, the motorcycle has also rotational movement which kind of complicates the concept, the car's background is too simple. The trees in the background of this jet show IMO in the nicest way to the dummy reader what is going on when panning happens. --MattiPaavola (talk) 00:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Out of the two I've suggested, I like this one better, per the reason above. Besides that, it's an airplane And I've fixed the categories a bit. Wolf (talk) 06:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support best in scope IMO --George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Scores: 
1. Chicken February 2009-1.jpg: +0
2. Motor cycle stunt2 amk.jpg: +0
3. DTM Mercedes W204 DiResta09 amk.jpg: +0
4. US Navy 040925-N-0295M-091 Retired U.S. Navy Capt. Dale Snodgrass takes off in his Korean War-era F-86 Sabre.jpg +3
=>
File:Chicken February 2009-1.jpg: Decined.
File:Motor cycle stunt2 amk.jpg: Decined.
File:DTM Mercedes W204 DiResta09 amk.jpg: Decined.
File:US Navy 040925-N-0295M-091 Retired U.S. Navy Capt. Dale Snodgrass takes off in his Korean War-era F-86 Sabre.jpg: Promoted.

--George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

:)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! --George Chernilevsky ^talk

VI review

Hello. Si mes comptes sont bons, tu me dois un petit service, une participation à une review de VI :-) Est-ce que tu pourrais éventuellement donner ton avis sur la division en deux subscopes proposée dans cette candidature ? Je ne suis pas farouchement contre mais j'aimerais au moins une opinion supplémentaire... Merci d'avance. --Eusebius (talk) 08:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Bonjour ! Si tu fais les comptes, je t'en dois plus d'un... mais tu peux dépenser sans compter en la matière, ce sera toujours avec plaisir :-) --Myrabella (talk) 16:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Merci ! --Eusebius (talk) 08:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)