User talk:PierreSelim/Archives/5

; Archives
(2009/05 - 2011/07); (2012/05 - 2012/11); (2013/04 - 2014/06); (2015/09 - 2016/02); (2016/07 - 2016/11); (2017/05 - 2017/??);	(2011/07 - 2012/05); (2012/11 - 2013/04); (2014/06 - 2015/09); (2016/02 - 2016/07); (2016/11 - 2017/05); ;

I will often respond to messages left on this talk page here, not on the talk pages of the users who left them.
If I wrote on your page, I am watching it, so replying there is probably best.

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Aer Lingus - A319 - EI-EPR.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 imho Good quality. --Steinsplitter 10:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS

Salut,

J'ai fait renvoyer la semaine dernière un formulaire OTRS par Georges Biard. Je le signale parce que j'en ai remis une deuxième fournée hier soir - il a déjà du renvoyer le formulaire, ou bien sinon il le fera aujourd'hui - donc attention, ça commence à s'accumuler ! (heureusement, ce ne sont pas des grosses fournées de photos) cordialement, JJ Georges (talk) 06:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

J'ai remis une troisième fournée aujourd'hui et il risque d'y en avoir une quatrième ces jours-ci, attention !

JJ Georges (talk) 19:20, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bon ben finalement j'ai remis la quatrième (petite) fournée dès ce soir. JJ Georges (talk) 21:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done --PierreSelim (talk) 09:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merci ! JJ Georges (talk) 12:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pour info, j'ai encore fait passer deux formulaires (de petite taille, ça porte sur assez peu de photos). cordialement JJ Georges (talk) 13:20, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voilà, juste pour dire qu'il y a maintenant trois fournées à valider (ce ne sont pas des gros formulaires, ça fait une vingtaine de photos en tout). cordialement, JJ Georges (talk) 07:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Juste un petit rappel parce que ça va faire trois semaines que j'ai mis les premières photos et j'ai toujours tendance à m'inquiéter un peu quand la validation tarde à venir....

Il y a un problème ? (NB : ce coup-ci il y en a assez peu mais après le festival de Cannes ça risque d'être la ruée) cordialement, JJ Georges (talk) 12:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Salut, oui j'ai été très occupé au mois d'Avril et je suis en vacances en ce moment :) --PierreSelim (talk) 10:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your help pls

Hi Pierre. Can you take a look at File:MasonicPaintGLNF.JPG? The uploader has already been angered by a prior deletion of mine, so I didn't want to tag this myself. Thanks for your time. INeverCry 23:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've started the deletion requestion, I'll try to comment in French for the user. --PierreSelim (talk) 10:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

a heads-up

In 2011 you participated in Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jcb_(de-adminship 2). That discussion ended with User:Jcb losing his administrator privileges.

This note is to inform you that User:Odder proposed Jcb have unconconditional access to administrator privileges restored.

Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jcb (readmin) is scheduled to close on May 20th.

Cheers Geo Swan (talk) 23:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up, I've seen the RfA but didn't have time to comment on it. --PierreSelim (talk) 10:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

threshold for French works

Hi Pierre, could I ask you to take a short look at the b/w drawing/logo that is requested for deletion in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Front de Libération de la Bretagne.jpg. May be you could give an informed opinion about whether such work is copyrightable/copyrighted according to French copyright jurisdiction. Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 20:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Forom des langues 2013 24.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support OK --A.Savin 10:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio

Salut,

C'est cette image. Merci, Udufruduhu (talk) 13:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Melenchon, 6ème République - MG 6513.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Cayambe 07:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Entrance of the Musée de l'École de Nancy.jpg

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ हिन्दी ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Entrance of the Musée de l'École de Nancy.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Denniss (talk) 22:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should be fixed now. Thanks for the notification. --PierreSelim (talk) 22:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Appropriately Licensed

You participated at the earlier discussion on licence choice for Featured Pictures. A number of users felt that such restrictions should be made at policy level. Please comment at Commons:Requests for comment/AppropriatelyLicensed. This is a proposal to amend this licence policy to disallow future uploads where the sole licence is inappropriate for the media (e.g., GFDL for images). In earlier discussions there were a number of comments that, while reasonable opinions, did not align with Wikimedia's mission for free content. Please read the FAQ before commenting. Thanks -- Colin (talk) 22:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question

Hi Pierre. Another user asked me on my talk about this: Categorie: Faune de Montfort. I don't know if there's already a cat that covers this, or if this needs to be renamed. Can you take a look? I appreciate your time. INeverCry 04:53, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't found any other category matching the subject however I'm not sure it's very intersting to have a caterogy for one squirrel :). For sure this category at least needs renaming to remove the leading space character. --PierreSelim (talk) 18:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't actually a category, it's a gallery (see the spelling of Categorie rather than Category). The squirrels already have proper categories. Did this person mean to make a gallery for something like Fauna/Animals of Montfort? I don't speak any French, and so can't ask what the creator's intentions were; whether he was trying to create a category or a gallery, etc. INeverCry 20:12, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure he wanted to create a gallery or a category, but it was Fauna/Animals of Montfort for sure. --PierreSelim (talk) 21:55, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the page both for the mistake and because Category:Animals of Quebec doesn't have any sub-categories, so that's where the images would go as it is. INeverCry 22:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Fragaria vesca - Toulouse - 2013-06-16.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Steinsplitter 06:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Forom des langues 2013 23.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support good --A.Savin 09:17, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Forom des langues 2013 25.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --JLPC 17:28, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Forom des langues 2013 18.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments
Support --Christian Ferrer 04:43 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Melenchon, 6ème République - MG 6549.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 It could benefit from a tighter crop, but QI. Horrible bokeh, btw. --Kadellar 15:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion request

Salut Pierre,Peux tu détruire Renea moutonii MHNT.jpg‎ et Renea moutonii MHNT shell.jpg‎. Il nous est arrivé une chose extraordinaire, les coquilles qui étaient dans le tube ne sont pas celle de l'Holotype. Comme l'identification peux prendre du temps enlève les, quitte à le remettre si on fini par savoir ce que c'est. En tout cas c'est la première fois que Phoebus permet de corriger une erreur interne au Muséum. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done File:Renea moutonii MHNT shell.jpg et File:Renea moutonii MHNT.jpg. Encore une victoire de Phoebus au final, dommage pour les photos :) --PierreSelim (talk) 11:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! 2013-06-29 - Nothing Toulouse vs One Love Roller Dolls - 08.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Smial 10:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! 2013-06-30 - Sur5al - 8921.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --JLPC 17:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! 2013-06-30 - Sur5al - 8922.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Jastrow 08:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! 2013-06-30 - Sur5al - 8846.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality.--ArildV 06:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Importation en masse de logos sous copyright

Salut,

J'attire ton attention sur Kiki64140 qui importe en masse des logos de clubs de rugby sur commons, logos violant les droits d'auteur. Tu peux y jeter un oeil et passer un coup de balai ? Merci, Udufruduhu (talk) 16:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC) [reply]

quelle efficacité ! Udufruduhu (talk) 16:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! 2013-06-29 - Quad Guards vs Southern Discomfort - 8404.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 11:06, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Fête de la musique 2013 - Toulouse - Orlando 7017.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support good --A.Savin 08:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! 2013-06-29 - Blocka Nostra vs Herault Derby Girlz - 6291.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 Ow. --Mattbuck 15:36, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Validation image / logo

Bonjour. J'avais pris une photo et ensuite téléchargée sur Wikicommons et vous l'avez supprimé. (chose que je comprends tout à fait, j'ai compris mon erreur depuis). C'était pour cet article sur la Wiki frrancophone : [ici] qui manque cruellement d'une image alors que la version du système d'exploitation précédant et suivant en possèdent. Les logos disposent d'un formulaire différent qui permet de téléverser sur Wikipédia (et non commons comme je découvre) donc je souhaiterais vous demander votre avis : Est ce que prendre une photo du DVD d'installation peut être considéré comme logo ? Voici l'image : Logo proposé Puis-je la téléverser ? Merci. — Ludopedia^(Talk) 19:11, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Je te suggère de prendre ça ^^, pour l'uploader sur Wikipedia (sous exception aux droits d'auteurs). --PierreSelim (talk) 19:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastique! En effet beaucoup mieux que cette photo que j'ai prise. Merci, merci merci. — Ludopedia^(Talk) 19:34, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed

Hi! I found an image I can't figure out. :-) Could you please have a look and maybe sort it into a category? File:R-26 - Foundation.jpg. Thank you for your time! --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 21:34, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't figure out what it is either. --PierreSelim (talk) 06:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jkadavoor found an article on enwiki.

Done --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 02:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Women heptathlon LJ French Athletics Championships 2013 t144221.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Women heptathlon LJ French Athletics Championships 2013 t144221.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 21:09, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oversight nomination

Hi PierreSelim,
I'm planning to nominate you for oversighter, but before I do that, I'd like to make sure that you will accept the nomination, feel up to the task and will be willing to identify to the Wikimedia Foundation. How do you find the idea of helping out the community this way? odder (talk) 21:41, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, Thanks Odder.

I would gladly accept your nomination, it would be a pleasure for me to help the project as an OS because it seems that lately you may have need some back up Commons:Oversighters/Statistics. Last but not least, I don't see any problem to be identified to the Wikimedia Foundation. --PierreSelim (talk) 06:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There you go, then. odder (talk) 10:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

new Commons brochure draft

Thanks for your comments on the Commons brochure draft. We're getting close to a final version, and I've put up a new draft that includes a lot of the suggested changes from the previous version. Please look it over if you have a chance, and post any final suggestions or corrections.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 14:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! 2013-06-30 - Sur5al - 8830.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support OK --A.Savin 10:34, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support

I'm sorry I got confused with your name and another user. I've changed my stance and I now support your candidature. Best wishes and keep with your good work. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 03:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]

It's ok, thank you for the kind message on my talk page. --PierreSelim (talk) 06:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

thanks!

		The Commons Barnstar
		Thanks so much for giving feedback on the Commons brochure! You can see the print version here. Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 15:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reupload

Hi.

Could you please delete this file? It was delete because of this deletion requests but uploaded again. thanks in advance.--عباس ☢ ✉ 08:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Train

Gmail pas accessible aujourd'hui et mail Flickr non plus -> pas pu prendre le train :( Bonne nouvelle, il y a aussi un train office près de mon dernier hôtel. Léna (talk) 02:20, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:FAC_ecusson.svg

Bonjour, Pour information : Commons:Service d'aide#Demande d'aide concernant un logo supprimé File:FAC_ecusson.svg. Il s'agit d'un utilisateur qui demande de l'aide au sujet du suivi de son courriel OTRS. (N.B. : La demande semble a priori légitime au vu de ce site et de la mention à l'effet que les droits d'auteur appartiennent au graphiste (qui est l'auteur du logo et aussi le gestionnaire du site du club) et à son entreprise. Évidemment, ça dépend de ce qui se trouve dans le courriel OTRS et si cela vérifie l'identité de l'utilisateur.) -- Asclepias (talk) 15:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

En effet j'ai envoyé le mail de demande de remise en ligne du fichier File:FAC_ecusson.svg le 6 août (à l'adresse mail permissions-commons-fr@wikimedia.org), et depuis aucune réponse. Pourriez-vous remettre mon fichier en ligne, sachant que je suis le graphiste qui a conçu le logo et qui s'occupe de la communication du club ? En réalité c'est assez urgent car nous sommes en pleine avant-saison, et c'est souvent la période durant laquelle les autres clubs s'affairent à obtenir les écussons des équipes concurrentes pour concevoir les calendriers, etc. Ttopaloff (talk) 09:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC)ttopaloff[reply]

Congratulations!

:-) --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail. :) Please send your ID following the instructions so that you can get the OS rights. Trijnstel_talk 21:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You now have the oversight rights. Please also subscribe to mail:oversight-commons if you haven't done that already. Thanks for volunteering and good luck with the new tools! Trijnstel_talk 11:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Use it well ;-) Jean-Fred (talk) 14:31, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! 2013-06-29 - Quad Guards vs Southern Discomfort - 8244.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 16:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! 2013-06-29 - Quad Guards vs Southern Discomfort - 8056.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --JLPC 17:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oversight attention needed

Hello, PierreSelim. Check your email—you've got mail!
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

INeverCry 01:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It should be hidden by now (I've also hidden the entry in Special:Log. --PierreSelim (talk) 03:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can still see this deleted revision and this one and this one and this one and this one and this one. I think that's it, but you may want to cycle through the edits before and after the ones in question to make sure. INeverCry 04:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had to oversight lots of history version to hide the personnal informations leaked. It should be ok by now. --PierreSelim (talk) 04:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great work! Thanks Pierre. I know how you feel; when I originally deleted the revisions it took quite a while to make sure I had every single one that replicated the info. I guess it's some good practice with the new tools though. ;) I think we're good now, and the user has been cautioned on their talk. INeverCry 04:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Catégories

Oui, c'est mieux indiquer le tournament, puis le match, et l'ordonner pour l'an, puis le mois et enfin le jour. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 12:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! ST vs AB - 2013-08-24 - Hosea Gear.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --JLPC 17:10, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Lutte sénégalaise Bercy 2013 - Mame Balla-Pape Mor Lô - 32.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lutte sénégalaise Bercy 2013 - Mame Balla-Pape Mor Lô - 32.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 21:02, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! ST vs CAB - 14h07.37.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support ok --Christian Ferrer 11:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! ST vs CAB - 14h47.15.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality.--ArildV 07:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eiffel Tower copyright info

Hello,

I read your comment below this image - you seem to be pretty well informed about the Eiffel Tower's copyright claims. I uploaded the picture attached, but I think it will disappear soon because of the copyright paranoia that seems to be rampant here. Is there any sort of documentation about this (non-)claim that can be used as reference?

Thanks, THEPROMENADER 08:30, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Doesn't Wikipedia have real lawyers of their own (instead of 'Wikilawyers') who know more about this sort of thing? THEPROMENADER 08:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

You, like me, are mentioned here We hope (talk) 10:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notification. --PierreSelim (talk) 12:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Photo du jour

Bravo pour la photo du jour sur Wiki France. Nous travaillons dimanche 29 à 16H30... Bonne Journée --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Help with Mediawiki Translation

Sorry to trouble. I have posted my translation for the Cat-a-lot tool in Mediawiki talk:Gadget-Cat-a-lot.js/yue and Mediawiki talk:Gadget-Cat-a-lot.js/zh-yue. Would you mind helping me update the Mediawiki page? Thank you. --William915 (talk) 05:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cailloux a effacer

Voici Natriliteinde1.jpg qu'il faudrait enlever car remplacée par une image de même spécimen qui elle va bien. Merci de ce que tu pourra faire. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

N'y a t il pas un bugg dans le compter de Phoebus, nous sommes crédité de 305 millions pour Août. C'est un holdup? Pierre Dalous a encore fait une photo? --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FP promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Copsychus malabaricus male - Khao Yai.jpg, uploaded by JJ Harrison and nominated by you on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Copsychus malabaricus male - Khao Yai.jpg/2 has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/J Kadavoor J e e 16:11, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! 2013-06-30 - Sur5al - 8941.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 -- Spurzem 20:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Martin

Pour info. Cordialement, — Racconish^Tk 08:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Photo de Ambre Troizat

Merci Pierre Selim pour la belle image de moi. --Bel Bonjour, Ambre Troizat (talk) 20:17, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

العربية ∙ català ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ English ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ Nederlands ∙ polski ∙ română ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ українська ∙ +/−

Thank you for participating in Wiki Loves Monuments 2013! Please help with this survey.

Dear PierreSelim/Archives,
Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments 2013, and for sharing your pictures with the whole world! We would like to ask again a few minutes of your time.

Thanks to the participation of people like you, the contest gathered more than 365,000 pictures of cultural heritage objects from more than 50 countries around the world, becoming the largest photography competition to have ever taken place.

You can find all your pictures in your upload log, and are of course very welcome to keep uploading images and help develop Wikimedia Commons, even though you will not be able to win more prizes (just yet).

If you'd like to start editing relevant Wikipedia articles and share your knowledge with other people, please go to the Wikipedia Welcome page for more information, guidance, and help.

To make future contests even more successful than this year, we would like to invite you to share your experiences with us in a short survey. Please fill in this short survey in your own language, and help us learn what you liked and didn't like about Wiki Loves Monuments 2013.

Kind regards,

the Wiki Loves Monuments team

Notification about possible deletion

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

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Affected:

File:One Euro - white bg.jpg

Yours sincerely, Eleassar ^(t/p) 08:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification, it allowed me to catch with our last interpretation on the common face of thoses coins :) --PierreSelim (talk) 08:11, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio

Salut,

Un petit coup de balais please ? File:ERC Logo 2011-12.jpg et File:Amlin Challenge Cup 2011-12.jpg. Udufruduhu (talk) 12:11, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merci

Udufruduhu (talk) 12:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! 2013-06-29 - Quad Guards vs Southern Discomfort - 8110.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support ok --Christian Ferrer 17:05, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editor @ ar.wiki

Hello. I would like to inform you that I have granted you editor flag at the Arabic Wikipedia, all your edits there will be automatically marked as patrolled. Best regards.--Avocato (talk) 14:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:0 Verdun - Cimetière de Douaumont (1).jpg

Cher Pierre,

Peux-tu jeter un coup d’œil sur la demande de suppression du fichier susmentionné.

En effet cette demande a été repoussée définitivement le 12 septembre 2011 par VIGNERON suite à ton intervention positive ainsi que celles de cinq autres utilisateurs pour garder cette photographie. Cette position favorable au maintien de l’image a d’ailleurs été largement confortée comme tu le sais par la sélection de cette image par le comité de Wikipédia France pour le concours Wiki Loves France 2011 dans lequel elle a remporté la 9eme place. Elle a ensuite remporté la 10eme place au concours Wiki Loves Europe 2011. Depuis cette date, elle n’a suscité aucune remarque par tous les administrateurs des sites Wikipédia où elle a été insérée à de multiple reprises.

Connaissant ta grande implication parmi les administrateurs de Commons puis-je demander ton assistance en cette matière, car je pense que l’utilisateur: Eleassar n’a certainement pas tenu compte de l’historique du fichier et encore moins de ce que je viens d’énoncer.

Cordiales salutations et merci d’avance.

Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 16:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Fionn Carr.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Martin Falbisoner 21:19, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Kieran Marmion.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 10:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking part in the Wiki Loves Monuments participants' survey!

Dear PierreSelim/Archives,

Thank you for taking part in the Wiki Loves Monuments participants' survey. Your answers will help us improve the organization of future photo contests!

In case you haven't filled in the questionnaire yet, you can still do so during the next 7 days.

And by the way: the winning pictures of this year's international contest have been announced. Enjoy!

Kind regards,

the Wiki Loves Monuments team

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Darragh Leader.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Stepro 01:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Japanese tea house - Toulouse - 2013-12-21.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support Good quality. --XRay 09:07, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2014 !

	*** * * 2014! * * ***
	Merry Christmas! Happy New Year! Happy holidays! -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:34, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays

	Happy Holidays!
	G'day, just a quick greeting wishing you and your family happy holidays and all the best for 2014. And of course, a big thank you for putting a leg up by doing what you do on Commons, and helping to make it the fantastic project that it is. Greetings from a warm west coast of Aussie. russavia (talk) 01:45, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

Wikipedia in the European Parliament

Since 2009 Wikipedians are visiting German and Austrian State Parliaments to take pictures of their members. They have been made available under a free license on Wikimedia Commons. They can be used in Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects but also outside of Wikipedia - in compliance with the license conditions - for example by the Members of Parliament themselves. Besides the creation of free pictures of politicians, the project offers the deputies the opportunity to ask questions about Wikipedia and to discuss „their“ Wikipedia article (eg. to indicate possible problems with personal rights). For Wikipedians this offers the chance to explain their idea of „Free Knowledge“ and the work of the Wikimedia projects. In addition these contacts give Wikipedia photographers access to places that are not accessible to the public in order to produce free images. We now have the opportunity to visit the European Parliament in Strasbourg in February and perform a photography and editing project for the 764 MEPs there. In particular as the next elections for the European Parliament are upcoming in May, these new articles and photos are under a strong focus of the public. Volunteers should sign up on our Google form - note the section on the Commons project page about selection.--Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 19:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bibliothèque municipale de Toulouse - Rue du Périgord - Statue.jpg

File:Bibliothèque municipale de Toulouse - Rue du Périgord - Statue.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Traumrune (talk) 20:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bibliothèque municipale de Toulouse - Rue du Périgord - Bas-relief mur.jpg

File:Bibliothèque municipale de Toulouse - Rue du Périgord - Bas-relief mur.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Traumrune (talk) 21:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bibliothèque municipale de Toulouse - Rue du Périgord - Bas-relief porte.jpg

File:Bibliothèque municipale de Toulouse - Rue du Périgord - Bas-relief porte.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Traumrune (talk) 21:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

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

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Affected:

File:BibliothequeMunicipaleToulouse.jpg

Yours sincerely, Traumrune (talk) 21:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Chris Ashton 4882 - crop.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support --A.Savin 15:29, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Chris Ashton - 2014-01-12.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support --A.Savin 15:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Espoirs Stade toulousain vs Lyon OU (18).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Bgag 14:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! 2013-06-30 - Sur5al - 8945.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 19:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement in the image: File:Potentilla indica - Toulouse - 2013-06-16.jpg

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Potentilla indica - Toulouse - 2013-06-16.jpg

Hello! You could remove the flash of the photo, because it is a FPC and this problem is very visible. Thanks. ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 23:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How am I supposed to do that ? The photo was taken with a flash light, it's a bit too late now :). --PierreSelim (talk) 09:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! 2014 W6N - France vs Italy - Christelle Le Duff 5780.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Pyb 14:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! 2014 W6N - France vs Italy - Safi N'Diaye 6102.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Nice! -- Der Wolf im Wald 13:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

French 1944 stamps

I am surprised by your deletion of this image, why the hurry? We were in the middle of a discussion about precisely which French stamps may still be covered by copyright, and I had just pointed out that the initial statement by Ww2censor was wrong: in 1944 France did not give authors 70 years post mortem but 50. Since the author of these stamps died in 1964 they will fall in the public domain next January 1st. Furthermore it is not clear to me that the legislation of that time considered stamps "oeuvres de l'esprit" and therefore covered by copyright. With your untimely deletion you cut the debate short and did not let any other editor reply.--Hispalois (talk) 23:17, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but you really cannot be willing to argue that timestamps were not considered at the time as "oeuvres de l'esprit". Then copyright in France has been changed from 50 to 70 years (everything that was still copyrighted at that time has a protection time of 70 years pma.). I'm sorry if you are not familiar with this, however it's how we commonly apply it on Commons. From my point of view (but I might be wrong), it seems you are trying everything to save this image without really understanding it. Feel free to correct me, as I'm not a lawyer, However I want to point you to this ressource <Commons:International copyright quick reference guide> which seems to agree with the interpretation I'm making. --PierreSelim (talk) 23:38, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

French/German bridge copyrighted?

Hi PierreSelim, could you give an opinion about whether the bridge File:Dreiländerbrücke.jpg, subject of this DR Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dreiländerbrücke.jpg, would likely be copyrighted or not in France, as the image has been shot from the French side. --Túrelio (talk) 14:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! 2014 W6N - France vs Italy - 5947.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 20:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would improve a lot if it was brighter. --Kadellar 02:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! 2014 W6N - France vs Italy - 5506.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 15:57, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! 2014 W6N - France vs Italy - Sandrine Agricole 5551.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --JLPC 17:01, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! 2014 W6N - France vs Italy - Ruck 5939.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. These pictures have great lighting! --Kadellar 20:00, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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:
Marjorie Mayans.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! 2014 - Ours vs Giants - 6353.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.--ArildV 00:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! 2014 - Ours vs Giants - 6437.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.--ArildV 00:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! 2014 - Ours vs Giants - 6162.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 21:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! 2014 - Ours vs Giants - 6177.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Nice --ArildV 08:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! 2014 - Ours vs Giants - 6743.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality.--ArildV 08:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! 2014 - Ours vs Giants - 6153.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 Goos quality.--ArildV 13:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of the Year 2013 R2 Announcement

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2013 is open!

⧼Wikibase-terms/5⧽: Deutsch, Ελληνικά, English, ‎français, magyar, ‎italiano, македонски, ‎‎日本語, ‎‎‎русский, ‎‎‎svenska

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2013 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eighth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2013) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. The top 30 overall and the most popular image in each category have continued to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just one image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 2 will end on 7 March 2014. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2013/Introduction/en Click here to learn more and vote »]

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

This Picture of the Year vote notification was delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Cathedral of Albi - Nave and Organ - 7029.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Nice church interior shot. --Tuxyso 07:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Yebrugal Melese - Paris Half Marathon 2014 - 5233.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. --Tsui 20:19, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Azmeraw Bekele Molalign - Paris Half Marathon 2014 - 5176.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support The DoFcan be better, but good quality--Lmbuga 12:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Yebrugal Meleses, Mulle Wasihun - Paris Half Marathon 2014 - 5325.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 Too many areas with the whites overexposed (see notes) and little areas underexposed (I saw it with lightroom), but I think that it can be QI: Nice and sharp--Lmbuga 12:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC) Comment Thanks for the review, I'll try to save what I can in the overexposed part. --PierreSelim 13:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks, but QI for me anyway--Lmbuga 16:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Cathedral of Albi - Nave and Organ - 7029.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cathedral of Albi - Nave and Organ - 7029.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 22:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Yebrugal Melese - Paris Half Marathon 2014 - 5208.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support very good --A.Savin 10:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Robert Kwambai - Paris Half Marathon 2014 - 5124.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 20:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sarah Chepchirchir - Paris Half Marathon - 5245.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --JLPC 18:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Telephoto and landscape

Bonjour Pierre, je te remercie d'avoir donné ton opinion sur mes photos candidates, en ce moment j'utilise le téléobjectif car je n'ai que deux objectifs, celui là ou un grand angle (14-24). La qualité étant supérieure avec le téléobjectif, mon choix se porte pour l'instant sur ce dernier et en plus le grand angle est vraiment grand... il me faudrait une solution intermédiaire (en projet). Tu n'es pas le premier à me le dire, et en plus je comprend très bien ce que tu veux dire, j'ai fait du mieux que j'ai pu pour faire des compositions agréables mais on a l'impréssion que l'on a coupé avec des ciseaux tout autour. Je ne manquerai donc pas de retourner à cet endroit faire de nouvelles photos avec le grand angle ou mon futur 35mm. Tes votes (supports ou oppositions) et surtout tes commentaires sont plus que bien venus. --Christian Ferrer 19:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC)|[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Céline Dumerc - Championnes de cœur - 8387.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Pyb 13:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sandra Dijon - Championnes de cœur - 8209.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Pyb 13:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oversight?

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Uploader_asking_for_images_to_deleted Saffron Blaze (talk) 03:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Antonija Mišura - Championnes de cœur - 8429.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 You could crop tighter at the left, but it's imho OK. --Tuxyso 08:02, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! ST vs CAB - 14h30.49.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support Good quality--Lmbuga 12:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! ST vs CAB - 14h32.40.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments High quality.--ArildV 07:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fichiers "stade de la Mosson" supprimés sans raison valable (pas de caractère artistique)

Bonjour, je te contacte (je me permets le tutoiement puisque c'est l'usage) en tant qu'administrateur pour que tu me conseilles sur la marche à suivre suite à cette suppression (que je juge délirante) qui n'est pas conforme à la jurisprudence française : ici. Peut-on faire appel ? Je ne vois pas très bien où est le problème : ce stade est basique (la Mosson), les photos montrent la pelouse (et un morceau de tribune) ou l'extérieur du stade... Le proposant raconte qu'il n'y a pas de droit de panorama, mais personne n'invoque le droit de panorama, c'est sans objet puisque ce n'est pas une oeuvre d'art. En plus, il y a un moyen d'apposer ça : le bandeau NoUploads puisque "wikimédia Commons" est une institution internationale. Ce que je n'aime pas c'est que ce sont des gens qui connaissent peu la loi française (et surtout qui ne parlent pas un mot de français) et qui ne tiennent pas compte de mes observations (en deux mots : ils prennent les gens pour des imbéciles...). Attention, ce sont des gens qui essaient d'ouvrir une brèche et de réécrire la loi (et surtout la jurisprudence) et bientôt on sera obligé d'effacer les photos de pelouse... Bonne soirée (rien ne presse). --34 super héros (talk) 18:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC) PS : ces photos ne valent pas grand chose mais c'est pour le principe : je ne comprend pas cette façon de faire...[reply]

Bonsoir. J'ai trouvé les renseignements : je vais passer par la page "Commons:Demandes de restauration", je pense que c'est la marche à suivre... C'est vrai que la loi protège les œuvres artistiques dont l'auteur est vivant (ou mort depuis moins de 70 ans) mais dire que la pelouse ou un morceau de tribune du stade de la Mosson est une œuvre d'art (mais qui est l'artiste ?), c'est une vaste blague... Mais il faut avoir vu les photos (quelconques) pour en prendre la mesure... Cordialement. --34 super héros (talk) 19:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

En fait pour ce que j'ai pu voir certaine montrent clairement l'architecture extérieure du stade de la Mosson. Ce stade est suffisamment originale pour que son architecture soit soumise au droit d'auteur français. Par contre un certain nombres de photos de cette demande n'auraient pas du être supprimer (celle dont le stade n'est pas le sujet. La qualité des photos n'entrent pas en compte dans ce type de discussion. --PierreSelim (talk) 07:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merci, effectivement, je suis d'accord pour les 4-5 photos qui montrent l'extérieur du stade (qui est assez atypique par le style et les couleurs), par contre pour les tribunes ou la pelouse (!!!), c'est presque ridicule. Pour info, en plus, la demande de suppression a été faite par Flickrworker, un utilisateur bloqué pour vandalisme, qui utilise des "faux-nez"... Je vais rédiger une "demande de restauration" au moins pour quelques fichiers. Cordialement. --34 super héros (talk) 09:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of the Year 2013 Results Announcement

Picture of the Year 2013 Results

In other languages: Deutsch, ‎español, ‎français, ‎日本語, Nederlands, русский, ‎svenska, ‎Türkçe, ‎українська

Dear PierreSelim/Archives,

The 2013 Picture of the Year competition has ended and we are pleased to announce the results: We shattered participation records this year — more people voted in Picture of the Year 2013 than ever before. In both rounds, 4070 different people voted for their favorite images. Additionally, there were more image candidates (featured pictures) in the contest than ever before (962 images total).

In the first round, 2852 people voted for all 962 files
In the second round, 2919 people voted for the 50 finalists (the top 30 overall and top 2 in each category)

We congratulate the winners of the contest and thank them for creating these beautiful images and sharing them as freely licensed content:

157 people voted for the winner, an image of a lightbulb with the tungsten filament smoking and burning.
In second place, 155 people voted for an image of "Sviati Hory" (Holy Mountains) National Park in Donetsk Oblast, Ukraine.
In third place, 131 people voted for an image of a swallow flying and drinking.

Click here to view the top images »

We also sincerely thank to all 4070 voters for participating and we hope you will return for next year's contest in early 2015. We invite you to continue to participate in the Commons community by sharing your work.

Thanks,
the Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sheffield Steel Rollergirls vs Nothing Toulouse - 2014-03-29 - 8991.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Wikijunkie 09:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Antonija Mišura - Championnes de cœur - 8043.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 13:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Céline Dumerc - Championnes de cœur - 8075.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support ok --Christian Ferrer 15:25, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WRONG

thank you for foaming at the mouth about nothing. your wrong.

the image was in the likeness but not the origional as you claimed. was also not complete (were not re-usable, chopped)

obviously the page dedicated to Doom95 fans is full of fair use pictures and not even modified ones (see above)

and i never claimed to own doom only to offer the fan page a reminiscent image

YOUR JUST FLAT WRONG and a bit crazy

who is paying you to to be crazy? i'm not.

Delete: It's a rip of the player sprite from Doom. The uploader claims it to be public domain "because doomlic.txt for sources by ID specifically asked internals to be shared with restriction of not claiming ownership and not using for sale". First off, had it been released with the Doom source code it would either be DSL or GPL, not public domain. Second but most importantly, it wasn't - only the source code was released under a copyleft license; the resources remain unshareable. Kolbasz (talk) 09:56, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Have a nice day. --PierreSelim (talk) 06:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArchiveBot

Hi, I noticed you have set up User:MiszaBot to archive your talk page. Unfortunately, the bot has stopped working, and given how its operator is inactive, it is unclear when/if this will fixed. For the time being, I have volunteered to operate a MiszaBot clone (running the exact same code). With that said, your input would be appreciated at Commons:Bots/Requests/ArchiveBot 1. Regards, FASTILY 07:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coucou

Coucou :) 86.65.55.253 14:05, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ruslan Korshunov X factor Ukraine.jpg

Hi! Please decide something about File:Ruskam Korshunov.jpg also. Taivo (talk) 11:18, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Albi at dusk - 2014-02-22.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --JLPC 15:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! 2014 W6N - France vs Italy - Ruck 5549 - Crop.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support Good quality. For this kind of photo it's OK with f/2.8. --XRay 15:17, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to meet you, let me know if

I can ever be of assistance, esp. on science or adjudication issues. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 23:14, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Keflavik bay - 2014-06-02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Cccefalon 07:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Rio Loco 2014 - Prince Koloni - 9662.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 19:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Rio Loco 2014 - Chris Combette - 9486.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support ok --Christian Ferrer 17:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TUSC token 4dbe66ffa9839c893875c4276b3100cf

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account! Time stamp for archive --PierreSelim (talk) 13:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pantin

Merci Pierre pour avoir renommé les photos de Pantin avec lesquelles j'avais, malencontreusement écrasé les tiennes. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pantin9_-_2012-07-07.JPG Je prend garde maintenant. Avec Commonist, c'est à la volée... antomoro Time stamp for archive --PierreSelim (talk) 13:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Pierre Cohen - Marriage equality demonstration - 2012-12-16.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments {{{3}}}

Time stamp for archive --PierreSelim (talk) 13:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Imanol Harinordoquy - 2013-01-25 - 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments {{{3}}}

Time stamp for archive --PierreSelim (talk) 13:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Foot US - Ours vs Kangourous - 2013-03-02 - 33.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments {{{3}}}

Time stamp for archive --PierreSelim (talk) 13:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of the Year 2013 R1 Announcement

Time stamp for archive --PierreSelim (talk) 13:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sheffield Steel Rollergirls vs Nothing Toulouse - 2014-03-29 - 8781.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments {{{3}}}

Time stamp for archive --PierreSelim (talk) 13:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fichiers RTA

Bonjour PierreSelim,

À propos de cette décision de suppression.

1. Le contexte :

Vers 2009, des communications se développent entre la Radio télévision publique argentine (RTA) et Wikimedia, chapitre Argentine. En 2010 la RTA offre une partie de ses documents d'archives (audios et videos) sous licence libre Creative Commons. En novembre 2010, dans le cadre de la commémoration du Bicentenaire de l'Argentine, la RTA publie une série de DVDs qui comprennent une compilation de ces clips d'archives, ces DVDs étant publiés par RTA explicitement sous licence CC-by-sa version Argentine 2.5. Cette licence est indiquée sur chaque boîte de DVD : «La Colección del Bicentenario es una producción integral de Radio y Televisión Argentina S.E. (RTA S.E.) editada bajo licencia Creative Commons by-sa Argentina 2.5. ... RTA S.E. promueve la copia y difusión de los contenidos de esta colección.» (Traduction : La Collection du Bicentenaire est une production intégrale de Radio et Télévision Argentine S.E. (RTA S.E.) publiée sous licence Creative Commons by-sa Argentine 2.5 ... RTA S.E. encourage la copie et la diffusion des contenus de cette collection.)

À cette occasion, le 11 novembre 2010, la RTA tient une conférence de présentation de la collection de DVDs. Le président de la RTA, Tristan Bauer, souligne que cette décision de la RTA d'offrir le contenu de cette collection sous licence libre s'inscrit dans sa philosophie de démocratisation des archives publiques et afin que le contenu soit librement et largement réutilisé. (youtube, entrevue)

Le 22 novembre 2010, Wikimedia Argentine félicite publiquement RTA de ces initiatives qui font usage de licences libres. (traduction anglaise archivée)

Des volontaires Wikimédiens s'attèlent à la tâche de convertir une partie de ces documents libres en formats techniques appropriés pour les sites Wikimedia (.ogv), de les téléverser sur Commons et de les intégrer à des articles pertinents des projets. (Category:Commons partnerships, Category:Radio y Televisión Argentina) Plusieurs des fichiers sont téléversés sur Commons vers la fin du mois de novembre 2010 par la personne visée par la demande de suppression, Beatriz Busaniche, qui était la directrice exécutive de Wikimedia Argentine, participante de la Free Software Foundation Argentina et de l'équipe de Creative Commons Argentina et Master en propriété intellectuelle.

Les heureux résultats de la coopération Wikimedia-RTA et la publication sous licence libre des DVDs de la collection Bicentenario sont salués et présentés comme exemple lors des Rencontres Wikimedia 2010 à Toulouse en décembre 2010 et dans diverses Wikimania et autres réunions Wikimedia depuis ce temps.

2. La demande de suppression :

Bref, on a du matériel sous licence libre, identifié comme tel, publicisé comme tel, relié à une coopération Wikimedia-institutions publiques, géré par des gens compétents qui savent ce qu'est une licence libre. Les fichiers sont utilisés sur les projets Wikimedia depuis quatre ans. La RTA semble satisfaite et n'a jamais donné signe que quoi que soit accrocherait ni qu'elle aurait changé d'idée. Tout le monde est heureux.

Tout le monde ? Non... Quatre ans plus tard, par le beau jour du 5 juin 2014, un utilisateur de Wikimedia Commons décide soudainement de demander la suppression en bloc d'une douzaine de ces fichiers. (Sa démarche semble d'ailleurs manquer de cohérence au départ. Pourquoi ces fichiers-là et pas les autres fichiers dans la même situation ? Pourquoi avoir retiré sa demande sur un fichier et pas sur un autre ? Mystère.) Le prétexte fumeux invoqué par le demandeur de la suppression ? Des copies des DVDs auraient été distribuées gratuitement à certains organismes. En effet, le demandeur remarque que des exemplaires de DVDs mentionnent aussi que «La distribución de la presente edición es gratuita y está destinada a instituciones sin fines de lucro.» (Traduction : La distribution de la présente édition est gratuite et est destinée à des institutions sans but lucratif.) Donc, une institution publique a distribué gratuitement des exemplaires des DVDs à des organismes. La belle affaire. Mais qu'est ce que cela a à voir avec la licence ? Rien. La licence du contenu est claire : CC-by-sa 2.5 Argentine. Après, que des exemplaires des DVDs soient donnés, vendus, prêtés, loués, à telles ou telles catégories d'organismes ou de personnes, peu importe. Cela n'affecte pas le moins du monde la licence libre explicite du contenu. La notice des DVDs est d'une limpidité cristalline : La licence est CC-by-sa 2.5 Ar. Par ailleurs, des exemplaires des DVDs sont distribués gratuitement. Il n'y a là rien de compliqué, ni rien d'inhabituel.

On s'attendrait normalement à qu'une demande de suppression aussi mal justifiée n'ait pas de suite. Mais, contre toute attente, un administrateur qui passe par là supprime tout. (Enfin, pas tout, vu qu'il reste plusieurs autres fichiers.) Ce qui au passage cause problème aux projets qui utilisent les fichiers.

Sur une autre page, le demandeur prétend que ces fichiers sous licence libre devraient être assortis d'une permission OTRS. Il a tort sur ce point aussi. Une caractéristique des licences libres est de ne pas nécessiter de permission supplémentaire pour réutilisation. OTRS est utile dans les cas qui le requièrent mais il n'y a pas lieu d'engorger le système avec des demandes inutiles. Dans ce cas-ci, il n'y a pas l'ombre d'un doute sérieux sur la licence. On imagine mal un utilisateur aller redemander à la RTA de répéter encore une fois de plus sa licence en envoyant un courriel à Wikimedia, alors que Wikimedia a été bien informée de tout le processus depuis le début, l'a accompagné, a félicité la RTA pour cette licence, que cette licence est publiquement et notoirement connue : «Dites, euh, vous savez votre licence CC-by-sa-2.5-Ar sur la collection Bicentenario, dont nous sommes déjà parfaitement bien informés, que vous avez déjà parfaitement exposée et publiée, eh bien, on se demandait si vous pourriez nous réécrire pour répéter encore, une centième fois, que c'est vraiment, vraiment, la vraie de vraie licence et que vous n'avez pas changé d'idée depuis quatre ans. C'est juste pour faire plaisir à un copain.» Ou plutôt on imagine ce que serait la réaction agacée de la RTA à une telle demande superflue. Si le demandeur de la suppression veut perdre son temps et faire perdre celui des volontaires OTRS, à lui de faire lui-même une telle demande. S'il obtient une réponse, on l'archivera. Pourquoi pas. Mais en tout cas, étant donné que dans ce cas-ci la licence est déjà publiquement connue, vérifiable et vérifiée, une telle demande est superflue, il n'y a aucune raison que la présence des fichiers sur Commons y soient conditionnels ni que les fichiers soient supprimés. On ne va pas saboter les projets juste pour faire plaisir à un utilisateur. Il faut souligner qu'on n'est pas ici dans une situation où un quidam aurait téléversé un fichier douteux et où il aurait un fardeau de preuve supplémentaire. Au contraire, dans ce cas-ci, la RTA, les volontaires de Wikimedia et la téléverseure ont déjà fait un travail de vérification et de communication supérieur à toutes les exigences. On a plutôt affaire à une demande de suppression peu réfléchie où le demandeur prétend contester des fichiers dont la licence est déjà bien établie et qui font partie des succès dont s'enorgueillit à juste titre Wikimedia. Si un fardeau de fournir un élément nouveau existe dans un tel cas, c'est celui de l'aspirant contestataire qui tente hors contexte d'imaginer un problème.

3. La conclusion :

Cette suppression a l'air d'une erreur. Je me permets de suggérer la restauration des fichiers. Afin que les articles puissent être réparés et d'éviter des inconvénients aux projets.

Merci d'avoir lu jusqu'ici. Cordialement, -- Asclepias (talk) 07:08, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merci, Asclepias je suis en déplacement actuellement, mais je vais lire attentivement tes arguments dès mon retour (ce soir ou demain). Il est possible que j'ai fait une erreur et je suis pret à corriger si c'est le cas. --PierreSelim (talk) 14:20, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merci encore une fois d'avoir pris le temps de m'expliquer très longuement la situation, au vue de ce que j'ai pu lire, j'ai probablement fait une erreur. Je vais annulée ma décision. --PierreSelim (talk) 13:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What Asclepias failed to mention above was he had asked at COM:UNDEL for the files to be restored and had been told that "COM:OTRS permission is necessary to clarify the ambiguous licensing terms" (see here) rather than seeking the correct clarification he then came here. We have the OTRS system for a reason, and this is a perfect example of why. Without such clarification the COM:PRP applies and the files should be deleted until such clarification is provided. LGA _talk^edits 00:15, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]