User talk:Rama/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Savoyard armour IMG 3805.jpg

I improved the crop of your Savoyard armour FPC. Feel free to take a look. LeavXC (talk) 21:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

for harassing me with unjust, trolling blocks

rama, two of mine blocks that were posted by you were lifted. I am sure that you knew that the third one (from tonight) will be too. Why are you doing that? To harass me, or to make the editors laugh over your ridiculous block reasons?

Whack!   

--Mbz1 (talk) 01:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Female head mp3h8759.jpg

Sorry to disturb you but this image you uploaded has no category and no description. I don't know where it came from either. Just to let you know. Maybe you can give some information here? Sorry, it came from the Louvre. That is all I can be sure of. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't seem to find this object in the Louvre database (it's definitly from the Louvre). I'll keep an eye open the next time I do there. Cheers! Rama (talk) 08:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• If you wish, you can add this cat for the image above if you want since its Egyptian. I don't know the Louvre room number but it might be better than having no cat at all:

Category:Egyptian antiquities in the Louvre

Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, absolutely. Done.

By the look of it, I'd venture to say it's probably ptolemaic, but I can't say more. Cheers! Rama (talk) 09:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you. Now there's only 6,010 uncategorized images on Commons. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Female head mp3h8759.jpg

Salut Rama, je passe au Louvre ce WE pour faire des photos techniques pour l'atelier photo. Je ferai un crochet par le département des Antiquités égyptiennes pour vérifier. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 14:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Merci, c'est vraiment gentil -- à maints égards. Rama (talk) 14:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Uzbin Valley ambush map 3b.png

Bonjour Rama. Serait-il possible d'ajouter une légende et une échelle à l'image File:Uzbin Valley ambush map 3b.png ? Cordialement, Ascaron (talk) 08:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Voilà, je ne sais pas si c'est ce que tu attends. Bonne continuation ! Rama (talk) 09:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Merci. Je pense que cela devrait suffire. Je te demandais cette modification en raison de ce vote. Ascaron (talk) 13:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Dans ce cas, c'est File:Uzbin3b-fr.png qu'il te faut. Rama (talk) 13:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Armure savoyarde IMG 3810.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}}}

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

review

• {{oppose}} Scope not formatted properly (should be [[:Category:Corseques|Corseques]]). Will  Support when fixed. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  

Done. Rama (talk) 00:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

•  Info I took the liberty of spelling the scope in the singular, which is usual for objects scopes (examples). --Myrabella (talk) 21:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment Thank you. I'll get the hang of it eventually, I swear! Rama (talk) 22:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  • We are all learning constantly :-) --Myrabella (talk) 22:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Myrabella (talk) 06:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Note

Jastrow was not much interested but perhaps you may be if you like artifacts from Napoleon's time. I had sent a message here to her but she was not interested which is OK. Admins are busy people. But maybe you might be interested? The pictures are of high resolution though one wishes the sparkles were less noticeable. Ah! The problems of taking pictures in a dark museum. I experienced them too at my local University museum in Canada. Anyway, I know nothing about these beauties or this Empress so I won't upload them onto Commons. But you can if you wish. Cheers, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

There you go: File:Crown of Empress Marie Louise 299 9964.jpg and File:Napolean 1 Diamond Necklace.jpg. Cheers! Rama (talk) 08:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• Congratulations. Hopefuly someone with an interest in Napoleonic art will appreciate and use them somewhere....thanks to you. I'm mostly lost in modern European art treasures sadly unless its Persian or Egyptian. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! SGI Indy signed-IMG 4182.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--Nevit 09:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Silicon Graphics Ball-IMG 4193.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--Nevit 09:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Silicon Graphics Ball-IMG 4190.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--Nevit 09:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Silicon Graphics 3D glasses-IMG 4199.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--Nevit 09:19, 26 August 2010 (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:
Apple II.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support I'm sure glad that's not the one I use. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Armure savoyarde IMG 3817.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 Idea: As you showed us some of other very good pictures of this armour, maybe could you crop this one and keep only the helm, which profile is very interesting and has alone a real encyclopedic value. IMO, the rest of the armour does not add here... Well, only an idea.--Jebulon 16:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC) Actually, there are several sets of armour; this armour has only this photograph. Rama 21:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC) Oui je me suis aperçu trop tard de ma confusion, désolé. N'empêche, le casque isolé...ça pourrait être intéressant! --Jebulon 16:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC) QI--Jebulon 17:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! MOS KIM-1 IMG 4211.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 to close

Hi, Rama, it has been 5 days since you added the proposal to topic ban me on I/P related subjects. That proposal is taking lot's of space on AN/U, and is not going to get a consensus. What do you think about archiving it? Thanks for considering my request.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I shall give your proposal all the consideration that it deserves. Rama (talk) 22:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know you have read the comment! If you believe that few more days of keeping the proposal active would change the outcome, then of course it is fine, (everything should be fair) , but honestly I see absolutely no indications that consensus is going to be reached. You know how the things are with the old AN/U posts. It actually was ZooFari, who asked to close it, and I agreed. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, rama, you were told that you are extremely inconsistent in your blocking me. Here's one more example I wonder why in the world didn't you block Jimbo? Hi "violated" few points of your proposal, when he wrote:"The point is, this is a classic symbol from Nazi iconography. In this context, it is clearly antisemitic in intent and meaning". Once again it is about time to archive the thread about me at AN/U. --Mbz1 (talk) 03:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Your admirer

Hi Rama,

Giorgio writing. I'm just a chap that likes categorize pictures here in Commons. Not a photographer, not an expert in something related to "imaging" so my opinion is, at least technically, worthless. Anyway, as someone that has reviewed thousands of pictures, I can say that all your contributions are some of the best images one can find on Commons. May be on the net. And all published under a free license. You are an hero. Very few people are doing what you do. I'm, definitively, an admirer of your. Please, don't give up with your amazing work. Sincerely.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 20:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Hipposandal.svg

---

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

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 22:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Apple II IMG 4213.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 useful. --Cayambe 14:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Amiga A1000 IMG 4280.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 Depth of field is a bit shallow, but ok to me. --Cayambe 15:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Torch IMG 2976-white.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}}}

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Smaky 100 IMG 4149.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}}}

assiette romaine

Salut. Sur ton "assiette" (?) romaine en QI, je vois bien ce que je vois, ou j'ai l'esprit mal tourné ? Tu vas te faire censurer !!!  ;) --Jebulon (talk) 22:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Re. Sur la lampe aussi, non ?--Jebulon (talk) 22:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Je ne suis pas 100% sûr que ça soit une assiette, peut-être un petit plat... Le reste fait moins de doute. Rama (talk) 22:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

c'est bien ça, donc. Je penche plutôt pour le fond d'une lampe, non ? Quant au tesson suivant, alors là, j'avoue que je ne comprends pas du tout ce que ça représente, ou alors... ou alors... Non ?... Si ?... C'est quoi, vraiment, ce musée ??!?--Jebulon (talk) 07:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Apple II IMG 4214.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. Jonathunder 22:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

un point de droit wikimedien

Ta as, en parfait gentleman, redressé la perspective de notre ami japonais, mais pouvais-tu voter après? Quand je modifie les images je prends garde de ne pas le faire mais j’ai peut-être tord. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Je n'ai pas de scrupule particulier dans ce cas dans la mesure où mon opération était triviale et où tout le mérite de la photo lui revient. Mais si ça te parait ambigu, je retirerai mon vote. Rama (talk) 08:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Ne te méprend pas je trouve naturel de voter mais je croyais qu’il ya avait un règlement qui l’interdisait. Il y a quelques jours Georges a soumis un champignon que j’ai modifié et il lui a manqué une voie pour passer et j’ai été très attristée de ne pouvoir la lui donner. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Je n'avais pas vu ce point de règlement, mais quoi qu'il en soit, tu as absolument raison, la femme de César ne saurait être soupçonnée. De plus, mon vote aurait à la rigueur été utile si ceux qui s'opposaient n'avaient pas ré-examiné l'image candidate après modification, mais vous êtes tous deux consciencieux et avec vos mises à jour l'image passe de toute manière. Dans ces conditions, il n'y a pas vraiment que je vote. Bonne continuation ! Rama (talk) 09:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lamp fragment IMG 4549.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 QI for me --Archaeodontosaurus 06:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Smaky 100 IMG 4155.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 07:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Amiga A1000 IMG 4275.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 useful. --Cayambe 07:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Challenger 2P-IMG 4138.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 useful. --Cayambe 07:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Roman ring-IMG 4686.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 "moving" testimony of past. Need further explanation IMO (period? material? Founding ?) I would like to know more about !--Jebulon 08:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC) Description now improved. It's a funny one, the motif in the bezel can be seen only under a certain angle. Rama 09:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Roman pottery IMG 4708.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.--Mbz1 04:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Roman plate fragment-IMG 4714.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.--Jebulon 22:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Roman dog statuette-IMG 6454.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 nice--Jebulon 22:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Creation-IMG 4784.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 QI & Useful --Archaeodontosaurus 05:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bronze dager 1800 BCE-IMG 4742.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 black background is not very legible, a gray background or gradient would be better. --Archaeodontosaurus 05:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC) Thank you, the idea of a gradient is excellent. Rama 06:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC) Godd now --Archaeodontosaurus 09:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Roman key-IMG 4648.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 QI and Useful --Archaeodontosaurus 05:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

This problem

Dear Admin Rama, I'm sorry about this situation but a picture of an object with no description means I cannot catalogue it and no one can use anonymous objects. I don't know Mesopotamian art, unlike Egyptian art, and this is not an ordinary item. This a superb photo which no one can use since no one knows what the object is including me. I thought Jastrow can help but Bibi says this object is catalogued and is this item But what is this? My French is very poor and I don't know Mesopotamian art or history at all. Maybe you can add a decription and a catalogue. Is it Babylonian? Its a puzzle to me sadly. --Leoboudv (talk) 20:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

• I think Shu-Sin was a king of Ur but don't know if Ur was Babylonian, etc. There must be a wikipedia article on this person. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello, sorryfot the late reply. Yes, there is an article en:Shu-Sin. Cheers! Rama (talk) 22:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• Yes I see it now. Luckily Pieter was there to help give a description because Jastrow was likely too busy to help. Thank god for people like Bibi too. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Déplacements de catégorie

Bonjour Rama,

j'ai requis plusieurs déplacements de catégorie, mais les choses avancent à un rythme de gastropode, c'est normal, nous sommes tous des bénévoles etc. Pourrais-tu avoir la gentillesse d'actionner un robot pour déplacer les catégories suivantes :

• Category:Église Saint-Pierre-le-Jeune de Strasbourg vers Category:Église Saint-Pierre-le-Jeune catholique de Strasbourg
• Category:Interior of Église Saint-Pierre-le-Jeune de Strasbourg vers Category:Intérieur de l'Église Saint-Pierre-le-Jeune catholique de Strasbourg
• Category:Strasbourg Cathedral Inside vers Category:Interior of Notre-Dame de Strasbourg
• Category:Inside of Saint-Martin, Colmar vers Category:Interior of Saint-Martin, Colmar

Merci d'avance, merci beaucoup et merci comme toujours. Cordialement, Edelseider (talk) 06:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Les bots sont lâchés. Bonne continuation ! Rama (talk) 22:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Merci ! !

Et cet atelier, était-ce un succès ?

Ciao

Edelseider (talk) 06:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Belt buckle-IMG 4764.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 should imo be cropped --Mbdortmund 17:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)  Support good now...Are you sure this is not a bottle opener? :)--Archaeodontosaurus 07:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Anubis face.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 QI & Useful --Archaeodontosaurus 07:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

juste une petite question de catégorie

Bonjour, File:Weight AO246 mp3h9144.jpg est catégorisé dans category:Egyptian antiques by Rama, ça ne devrait pas plutôt aller dans category:Middle East antiques by Rama. Vu que c'est une catégorie utilisateur, je n'ai pas osé changer.--Zolo (talk) 21:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

En fait, category:Egyptian antiques by Rama regroupe pêle-mêle des pièces du Louvre pour lesquelles il manque des bouts de description, ou que je n'ai pas complètement fini d'annoter. Le but serait de la vider complètement et de la détruire, ce qui ne s'est pas encore fait parce que j'ai tendance à oublier qu'il y reste des images. Merci et bonne continuation ! Rama (talk) 22:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

D'accord, j'enlève la catégorie pour celui-là alors (la description a été faite), et à l'occasion je sais où il y a des fichiers qui auraient besoin d'une petite description ;)--Zolo (talk) 13:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Atelier photo, le Retour

Bonjour,

l'atelier photo qui avait lieu ce week-end s'est suffisemment bien passé pour que l'on envisage d'en organiser d'autres éditions. Comme tu avais exprimé de l'intérêt sans pouvoir venir, je me permets de t'écrire en priorité pour te demander s'il y a des lieux ou des dates qui t'arrangeraient ou te sembleraient pertinents. Si tu as des idées, tu peux les soumettre sur User talk:Rama/atelier photo 2.

Merci et peut-être à un de ces jours ! Rama (talk) 09:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Le lieux était parfait pour moi. Le Dimanche y'a pas trop de transport pour rejoindre Paris depuis la ville où j'habite mais je me serais débrouillé en temps normal. C'est juste que ça tombait mal ce jour là. Merci pour ton attention. Cordialement. --Pixeltoo (talk) 11:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Atelier photo

Heureuse de savoir que la 1ère édiion c'est bien passer. je fais mes propositions de suites. par contre, sont ils ouverts à tous photgraphes de Commons ? Auquel cas, je proposerais ton lien à mes contacts photographiques de commons ! Véronique PAGNIER (talk) 17:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Merci pour ton intérêt. C'est ouvert à tous les photographes, quel que soit leur niveau, et qu'ilssoient sur Commons ou pas. Je serai ravi si tu nous rameute des participants. A bientôt j'espère ! Rama (talk) 18:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Atelier photo

Bonjour Rama.
Ce fut donc, semble-t-il, un succès. Tant mieux. Il faudrait peut être un compte-rendu avec un résumé, un polycop, quoi ! Pour ceux qui ont séché... "Les actes du colloque" ou quelque chose comme ça, avec des liens bien sûr ! Finalement, je n'ai pas été retenu par le boulot, mais voilà, je suis aussi un papa, et j'ai été coincé pour des raisons d'intendance perso... Je me suis vengé en prenant dimanche après-midi des photos pour "Commons" à Vaux le Vicomte, qui ont l'air de plaire...
Je regrette en tous cas, l'expérience a dû être sympa... Pour une prochaine fois, le principe est que ça m'intéresse si c'est à Paris, mais que je ne suis pas en mesure de donner de date (imprévisibilité du boulot...). Merci de m'avoir contacté en tous cas. A bientôt probablement.--Jebulon (talk) 09:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Merci pour ton intérêt !

Je crois que la réunion s'est en effet bien passée. Je me suis fait voler un Leica M3 (celui qui illustre l'article) dans le cambriolage de la voiture d'un ami, que fait la police ? Mais quand on n'a à se plaindre que de ça, c'est que les choses vont plutôt bien. La réunion avait une ambiance très agréable, beaucoup d'émulation, des gens vraiment bien.

J'avais pensé à faire publier les interventions sous forme d'articles courts. La plupart reposaient de près ou de loin sur des billets de blog, je n'ai donc pas trop insisté, mais c'est vrai qu'on pourrait publier un vade mecum.

Il est probable qu'il y ait une revanche à Paris (central, bien connecté et aux nombreux sujets), j'espère que nous trouverons le moyen de boire un verre quoi qu'il arrive.

Bonne continuation dans la veine de Vaux-le-Vicomte, et j'espère à bientôt ! Rama (talk) 10:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Atelier photo

Bonjour Rama, Merci de m'avoir contactée pour L'Atelier, le retour. Je reste très intéressée et curieuse d'apprendre. Dégager deux jours sera peut-être difficile but let's see... Paris est pour moi le plus commode. J'ai vu qu'il y avait des propositions pour l'Est ; si cela se fait là-bas, une séance d'exploration urbaine en light painting avec ComputerHotline serait super, non ? --Myrabella (talk) 16:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Stele god with feather AO13174 mp3h9009.jpg

This uncategorised photo is yours I notice. Just to let you know. Maybe you can add 1-2 cats or you can ask Bibi for help here? Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, good one. I'll think about going through all this unsorted category of mine. We'll also have to redo all these images some time. Thank you and cheers! Rama (talk) 07:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you for your help. Bibi St Pol did say (on my talk page) that in the beginning the emphasis was on the image file count here but today the stress is on the quality of the photos. That was why your photos grabbed my attention. It was nice to rescue them from the uncatalogued section but the quality was already superb from the extra-large resolutions. Well I hope this is the last one. Cheers from Vancouver, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

That's most kind of you. Actually, I have gained some experience about how to display museum objects from Project Phoebus (at Toulouse Natural History Musuem), and I also have a better camera than then, so I hope to make better photographs next times. For instance, this stele would be better displayed with all four faces on one image. Thank you again for your enquiries and cheers! Rama (talk) 11:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

File:NIJNTJE.JPG

Hello Rama, according to user Rodejong you approved on IRC the version of File:NIJNTJE.JPG that was uploaded yesterday by him. Maybe he misunderstood or so. Was your approval meant to be a statement that the version that was uploaded yesterday was not violating the copyright of the Nijntje/Miffy statue dominating that picture? If so, I'm very surprised. The Nijtje/Miffy figure was designed by the famous professional dutch illustrator and graphic designer Dick Bruna who is still alive so for sure the copyright didn't expire yet. The uploader used that picture in the Dutch Wikipedia article nl:Nijntje explaining it was taken at Schiphol [1] (the national airport in The Netherlands). So it's clear the Dutch copyright law is applicable here. Although your babelbox didn't mention your Dutch language skills, I will qoute here from Article 18 of the Dutch Copyright Law (Auteurswet 1912). That article states [2]

Als inbreuk op het auteursrecht op een werk als bedoeld in artikel 10, eerste lid, onder 6°, of op een werk, betrekkelijk tot de bouwkunde als bedoeld in artikel 10, eerste lid, onder 8°, dat is gemaakt om permanent in openbare plaatsen te worden geplaatst, wordt niet beschouwd de verveelvoudiging of openbaarmaking van afbeeldingen van het werk zoals het zich aldaar bevindt. Waar het betreft het overnemen in een compilatiewerk, mag van dezelfde maker niet meer worden overgenomen dan enkele van zijn werken.

There is no indication this specific Nijntje/Miffy statue was made in order to be permanently placed in a public space. As a matter of fact, although the statue can be seen from outside, it was inside a shop (i.e. not a public space) when the picture was taken!

I would like to know if you approved this file and if so, based on what reason? Is there some other article in the Dutch law I overlooked? - Robotje (talk) 08:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

my exact words, including typing errors, were:

[Thursday 09 September 2010] [13:24:42] <Rama> in this case, I think that oyu can reasonable argue that the rabbit is accessory in the photograph. The main subject is clearly the boy, and the photograph would work with any other object.

The doctrine in question would therefore not be Panoramafreiheit, but rather something like de minimis. I do not mean this as a legal guarantee of any kind, something that I am not qualified to give in any case. Rama (talk) 08:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

How can you argue it is clearly the boy who is the main subject on this picture. I'm pretty sure the number of pixels that is needed to display the boy is less than halve the number of pixels needed to display only the head of Nijntje, even without his long ears! To me it is hardly arguable the boy is the main subject on this picture and to state he is clearly the main subject is so weird to me. Besides, this filename is 'NIJNTJE.JPG' and as far as I could see it was only used on Wikipedia-articles (nl-wiki, sv-wiki and zh-wiki) about Nijntje/Miffy and gallery's of the uploader. If it was really clearly about the boy that wouldn't make much sense. You removed the previous version and in the log I see you explain that by mentioning as the reason: "Derivative of non-free content .." with a link to Commons:Derivative works. On that page there is the following example:

If I take a photograph of a kid who is holding a stuffed Winnie the Pooh toy, does Disney own the copyright in the photo since they own the Pooh design?

No. Disney does not hold the copyright on the photo. There are two different copyrights to be taken into account, that of the photographer (concerning the photo) and that of Disney (the toy). You have to keep those apart. Ask yourself: Can the photo be used as an illustration for "Winnie the Pooh"? Am I trying to get around restrictions for two-dimensional pictures of Pooh by using a photo of a toy? If so, then it is not allowed.

So lets replace "(Winnie the) Pooh" in those few last sentences by Miffy/Nijtje. That would result in "Ask yourself: Can the photo be used as an illustration for "Miffy/Nijtje"? Am I trying to get around restrictions for two-dimensional pictures of Miffy/Nijtje by using a photo of a toy? If so, then it is not allowed." To me, the answer is: yes the argument of the boy is used to get around those restrictions and so it is not allowed. - Robotje (talk) 09:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

If I was interested in arguing this matter, I would have done that on the relevant deletion request, would I not? Rama (talk) 09:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm still puzzled about this. If it is an official policy here on Commons that a picture of boy holding a Pooh toy is not allowed if it done to get around restrictions for two-dimensional pictures, why would picture of a boy standing next to a much bigger Miffy statue be allowed? Can you understand that is really something I cannot follow? - Robotje (talk) 09:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Right, but is it not an official policy here on Commons that a picture of boy holding a Pooh toy is not allowed. Rama (talk) 09:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

On top of that page it says "This page is considered an official guideline on Wikimedia Commons." If there is a difference between an official guideline and an official policy, sorry for the misunderstanding. Last question for now: where can I find more about de minimis in the Dutch copyright law or somewhere else. - Robotje (talk) 09:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Read the part that you quoted yourself carefully:

If I take a photograph of a kid who is holding a stuffed Winnie the Pooh toy, does Disney own the copyright in the photo since they own the Pooh design?

No. Disney does not hold the copyright on the photo. There are two different copyrights to be taken into account, that of the photographer (concerning the photo) and that of Disney (the toy). You have to keep those apart. Ask yourself: Can the photo be used as an illustration for "Winnie the Pooh"? Am I trying to get around restrictions for two-dimensional pictures of Pooh by using a photo of a toy? If so, then it is not allowed.

Ergo, the official policy does not exclude that a photograph could contain a stuffed Winnie the Pooh toy and be accepted.

I do not know where you can find documentation in Dutch. I am not a lawyer, I do not speak or read Dutch, and I am not interested in the matter that you bring up. Sorry. Rama (talk) 09:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I did read that example on the that official guideline page carefully including the last line "If so, then it is not allowed.". I'm sure they wrote that not to say taking those kind of pictures is not allowed but more it is not allowed to upload that kind of pictures on Commons. So my point is, if it is a similar situation as the example (and I pretty convinced of that), than uploading is not allowed. - Robotje (talk) 09:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing images

---

Hello, Rama!

Tip: Add categories to your files

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

CategorizationBot (talk) 10:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• Image:Carte aide-mémoire photo-01.png was uncategorized on 9 September 2010 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
• Image:HMS Diadem at capture of Good Hope-Thomas Whitcombe-3.jpg was uncategorized on 4 January 2012 CategorizationBot (talk) 13:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
• Image:HMS Diadem at capture of Good Hope-Thomas Whitcombe-2.jpg was uncategorized on 4 January 2012 CategorizationBot (talk) 13:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Seal of Lausanne-IMG 4771.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 --George Chernilevsky 07:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC) despite (or because ?) the print was not made by the device...--Jebulon 10:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Goniometer IMG 4841.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 QI & useful --Archaeodontosaurus 17:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Maîtres anciens dans les musées de Strasbourg

Bonjour Rama,

j'ai aménagé cette galerie virtuelle, mais il manque quelques-uns des tableaux les plus renommés, notamment "Judith" du Corrège, le "Portrait du chanoine Ambroise Volmar Keller" de Hans Baldung-Grien, "La Pêche miraculeuse" de Jacob Jordaens, "Adam et Eve" et "Gédéon" de Maarten van Hemskerck et "L'Ingegno" de Giuseppe Maria Crespi. Sans parler des oeuvres de Francesco Cairo, Alessandro Magnasco, Willem Claesz. Heda, Willem Kalf, Jan van Goyen, Philippe-Jacques de Loutherbourg, etc. Pourrais-tu à l'occasion aller refaire un tour ou deux ? Merci beaucoup

bien cordialement Edelseider (talk) 12:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Salut,

je ne sais a priori pas du tout quand j'aurai l'occasion de faire des photos là-bas, mais ce genre de liste est extrêmement utile. Je ne manquerai pas de partir en chasse si je retourne dans le coin. Bonne continuation ! Rama (talk) 19:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Merci d'avance ! J'ai laissé la même requête à Ji-Elle, on ne sait jamais. Cordialement, --Edelseider (talk) 19:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Creation-IMG 4784.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Creation-IMG 4784.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 13:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Belt buckle IMG 4765-a.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 QI & Useful --Archaeodontosaurus 15:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Dague de Bronze

Si tu adoucis les contour çà doit passer sans problème... --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 20:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Merci de ton encouragement, j'ai essayé de faire quelque chose. Mais c'est vrai qu'elle est un peu molle. A main levée dans un musée, pas de miracles... Bonne continuation ! Rama (talk) 21:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Wall painting Sacrifice ordinator AO19825 mp3h9088.jpg

This is definitely the last uncategorised image. I remember seeing this photo 1-2 weeks ago but then I forgot about it and didn't act..until I saw it again today. I don't know what this is as it has no cats or description. I hope you can help here. Thank you from Vancouver, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Here we go. And if you find more last uncategorised images, please do bring them to my attention. I know that there are more, and labeling them is a bit of work; your focusing on the most urgent and interesting pieces is very valuable to prioritise labeling. Cheers! Rama (talk) 07:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

•  Comment: No, this is the last one. I am certain of this because I went through the entire catalogue of uncatalogued images and this was the one I remember from your account. But I forgot to tell you about it and lost track of the image and then I never saw it again until I clicked on 'W' just now. There are no more left. Anyway, it has a rather intimidating title. With Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Couleur du casque

On peut voir la couleur kaki c'est un casque de la 2e guerre, dans la première il étaient tous bleus...--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Bon sang mais c'est bien sûr ! Et moi qui me posais des questions sur les rivets de la crête... Merci ! Rama (talk) 06:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Euh... Pardon d'intervenir dans une discussion bien ancienne, mais c'est faux. Toutes les troupes coloniales portaient un casque kaki pendant la Grande Guerre...--Jebulon (talk) 20:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Oui, effectivement, entre-temps, on l'a attribué aux troupes d'Afrique, modèle 1915. Rama (talk) 20:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Roman era bowl IMG 4755.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 Artisanat photographique solide. --Ikiwaner 11:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Louvres-antiquites-egyptiennes-img 2724.jpg

---

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

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 09:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Egypt

Bonjour, Rama. Je vous remercie également pour vos superbes photos. Cordialement, --JMCC1 (talk) 10:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pin IMG 4983.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 QI & Useful --Archaeodontosaurus 18:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Toshiba T1000SE-IMG 4865.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 08:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Toshiba T1000SE-IMG 4863-c.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 Also good. --Cayambe 08:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Adrian helmet IMG 5121.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 crop could imo be tighter --Mbdortmund 22:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Fife IMG 4818.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}}}

Copyright status: File:Louvres-antiquites-egyptiennes-img_2736.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Louvres-antiquites-egyptiennes-img_2736.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.

High Contrast (talk) 08:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

File:US_military_bases_in_the_world.svg

File:US_military_bases_in_the_world.svg 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!

188.129.67.157 21:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Belt ornaments IMG 4765.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--Jebulon 23:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Poignard IMG 4979.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 --Jebulon 23:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Contax III IMG 5349-white.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 QI for me --Archaeodontosaurus 10:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Contax N1 IMG 5341.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 well done --AngMoKio 09:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nikon FM IMG 5346.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 well done --AngMoKio 09:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Journal des suppressions de page

Bonjour Rama,

Je viens de découvrir que vous avez supprimé mon fichier Joseph_Bedier/Joseph_Bedier_mort_a_Mauthausen.jpg pour raison de "Copyright violation". Pouvez-vous SVP me dire avec plus de détails pourquoi vous avez fait cela? Car en effet, non seulement avant de mettre ce fichier sur Wikimedia commons j'avais pris mes précautions vis-à-vis des droits de cette image, mais en plus, en tant que neveu de Joseph Bédier je suis détenteur des documents originaux qui prouvent que l'image publiée n'a aucun copyright et est exploitable pour une publication libre de droits sur internet. Je suis photographe professionnel, et avant de mettre une image sur le net la première chose que j'ai faite c'est de me soucier de savoir si j'en avais le droit. Si ce n'est pas le cas, merci de me dire en quoi, et pourquoi. Vous pouvez me contacter par message privé contact@dominique-bedier.com User:Papageno3

Bonjour,

en France, une oeuvre tombe dans le domaine public 70 ans après la mort de son auteur, ou 70 après publication dans le cas d'une oeuvre anonyme (« oeuvre anonyme » signifie que l'auteur a exprimé le voeu de ne pas être nommé ; une oeuvre n'est pas anonyme lorsqu'on en ignore simplement l'auteur).

Dans le cas présent, il y a deux raisons qui concourent à la suppression de ce fichier:

• l'auteur est marqué « inconnu » ; par « principe de précaution », on suppose que le fichier ne tombe dans le domaine public que lorsqu'il n'est plus concevable que l'auteur ai vécu au-delà de 1940 (puisque 1940 = 2010 - 70). C'est le cas pour, mettons, d'une photographie prise vers 1860, mais pas d'une image publiée en 1920 ; certainement pas d'une image réalisée en 1947, bien évidemment.
• à suppose que l'auteur soit effectivement anonyme, et non simplement inconnu, l'oeuvre resterait protégée jusqu'à 70 ans après sa publication, soit jusqu'en 2017. A ce moment-là, elle tomberait dans le domaine public et il serait possible de la publier sur Commons.

Je précise que la possession du dessin comme objet physique ne fait pas de vous le détenteur des droits d'auteur associés au dessin comme oeuvre de l'esprit, malheureusement. Dans le cas d'un auteur non identifié, ou mort sans héritiers, l'oeuvre est dite « orpheline » et ne peut être publiée sous licence libre que lorsqu'elle tombe dans le domaine public. J'ai bien peur que nous ne soyons en plein dura lex sed lex.

Je regrette comme vous qu'il soit impossible de publier cette oeuvre. N'hésitez pas à me recontacter s'il demeure des points obscures (je vous envoie une copie de ce message par le système de mail de votre site web). Bonne continuation ! Rama (talk) 14:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Leica IIIf IMG 5407.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 --Mbdortmund 23:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Rubicks cube IMG 5429.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 The cube is a bit old ;-) QI omo. -- Felix Koenig 20:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wooden toy IMG 5423-white.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 QI for me --Archaeodontosaurus 12:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pistolet An IX IMG 5539.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 QI & Useful --Archaeodontosaurus 05:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Canonet IMG 5363.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 QI & Useful --Archaeodontosaurus 14:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pilatus P2-IMG 6110.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 QI for me. --Johannes Robalotoff 18:57, 27 September 2010 (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:
Pistolet modèle An IX.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support All criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Epees IMG 5568-12b.jpg

Salut Rama.
Je m'essaie moi aussi au détourage (avec The GIMP), et j'ai quelques soucis avec les fonds blancs (voir mon "Pompée" en FPC, et les commentaires subséquents des opposants "traditionnels"). Je pense que ça se situe au niveau de la nature de la brosse à utiliser. Peux-tu m'indiquer succinctement la façon dont tu procèdes ? merci. (Concernant tes épées, je trouve le commentaire et le vote de THFSW un peu sévère...Je crois que je vais te "soutenir")--Jebulon (talk) 17:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Salut,

J'utilise parfois la gomme, typiquement avec "circle fuzzy (05)" pour les zones assez nettes, et en augmentant le rayon progressivement si la netteté se dégrade (quand on progresse very l'arrière-plan, par exemple).

Mais j'utilise de préférence un système de sélections avec l'outil de sélection polygonal (parfois en partant d'une première sélection grossière faite à la "baguette magique" dans les cas faciles, mais on obtient toujours des espèces d'escaliers; il faut toujours suer de son front pour obtenir de bons résultats). Ensuite, j'utilise "feather" pour adoucir les contours de la sélection et éliminer l'arrière-plan.

Je vais peut-être essayer de faire une documentations à ce sujet à l'occasion. Au pire, ça serait quelque chose à mettre au programme dans un prochain atelier photo. N'hésite pas à si je puis t'être utile, et bonne chance et bon courage ! -- Rama (talk) 08:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Paris-pouetique-2.jpg

File:Paris-pouetique-2.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

--Trycatch (talk) 18:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

guerre d'algérie

bonjour, j'ai répondu à votre demande de suppression sur les captures d'écran du documentaire sur la guerre d'algérie. ici. Madame Grinderche (talk) 23:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Boussole IMG 5574.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--Lmbuga 10:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC) - You might want to add it to the correct sub category of Category:Sundials. --Kuli 18:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! F-18 IMG 5790.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 I'd have preferred it more centred, but good. Mattbuck 20:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Outil en FPC

Salut Rama.
Il y a des petits défauts de détourage visibles à haute résolution près des vues de ton outil toulousain. Les trois sont concernées, jette juste un coup d'oeil circulaire et tu les verras, très faciles à corriger il me semble. Je préfère te le dire ici que sur la page de revue, histoire de ne pas donner de mauvaises idées à des "opposants" potentiels.
Une petite opinion qui n'engage que moi: un fond uniforme (noir, en l'occurrence) , c'est meilleur, je pense.
C'est un très bel objet et une image très réussie. Naturellement je la soutiendrai dès que tu auras "fixé", comme ils disent...
amicalement à toi, --Jebulon (talk) 21:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Effectivement c'était un peu détouré à la pelleteuse. Merci beaucoup pour ta remarque, c'est tout l'intérêt de ces processus de labelisation. Bonne continuation ! Rama (talk) 08:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Stair to Lausanne cathedral IMG 6529.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 --Carschten 19:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Graphomètre

Bonjour Rama,
Pardon, c'est encore moi pour des remarques. Deux noms propres apparaissent "Burtherfield" et "Burtterfield", soit dans le fichier, soit dans la description. Lequel est le bon ? Par ailleurs, ton travail d'effacement sur le fond rouge se voit vraiment trop, à mon avis...
J'espère que tu ne prends pas ça pour du harcèlement !
Cordialement--Jebulon (talk) 17:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Merci pour les remarques. C'est bien Butterfield. Je vais voir pour le fond quand j'ai un moment.

Sûrement pas du harcèlement, peut-être du maternement, au contraire. Merci encore ! Rama (talk) 18:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Smaky 100 IMG 4149.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Smaky 100 IMG 4149.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 21:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Komet schematics.svg

Hi! Nice drawing, but Komet had additional 150 mm gun between superstructure and aft mast, and one more in small aft superstructure. A drawing, that I have (I can scan for you), shows also 60 mm gun hidden in bow. It should have also twin 37 mm Flak, but I don't know where. Pibwl (talk) 07:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

If that's not too much of a hassle for you, I'd be glad to see your drawing and improve the schematics. Thank you and cheers ! Rama (talk) 08:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Drop me a mail, so that I can send you. Pibwl (talk) 21:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, at which address? Rama (talk) 14:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Try "email this user" on the left. Pibwl (talk) 10:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Categorisation

Je vais essayé de te donner un coup de main pour les photos. Il y a une catégorie "Émile Cartailhac" que j'ai rajouté au bracelet... --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 20:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Merci ! En fait, on pourrait presque ajouter Category:Émile Cartailhac à Category:Necklace MHNT.PRE.2009.0.237.1 plutôt qu'à chacune des photographies individuelles. En tout cas je garde Category:Émile Cartailhac à l'esprit pour la suite. Merci encore ! Rama (talk) 21:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

C'est encore moi !!

Eh oui, l'emm... a encore frappé.
J'allais benoîtement promouvoir ceci, mais comme je sais à quel point le détourage est chose difficile et ch...te, j'ai regardé ça de près. J'ai donc mis une petite annotation sur la photo. Par ailleurs, il y a certains espaces à l'intérieur des rangs de perles que tu as laissés au "naturel", mais il y a dedans des reflets un peu rouges qui se voient, même sans agrandissement. Je crains qu'il ne faillent y détourer aussi...
Avoue que si tu ne m'avais pas, tu t'ennuierais !
amicalement à toi, --Jebulon (talk) 21:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Oui, c'est pas facile pour un daltonien ! C'est bizarre, je viens de repérer une espèce de pentagone noire qui ne devrait pas être là. Je vais reprendre sérieusement cette image. Merci pour ta vigilance ! Rama (talk) 21:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Qu'est-il arrivé à ta page d'utilisateur ?--Jebulon (talk) 21:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

oui je me le suis demandé aussi! --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Categorisation

J'ai fait une category Burail of Teviec, pour la sepulture, peut être pourais-tu renommer la catégorue Necklace MHNT.PRE.2009.0.237.1 en Necklace... pour verser toutes les parrures et autres dents percées. Si tu renommes je me charge de les déplacer --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

En fait, pour Category:Necklace MHNT.PRE.2009.0.237.1, je pensais faire une catégorie différente par spécimen dont nous aurions plus d'une seule photographie (donc Category:Necklace MNHT PRE.2009.0.238.1, Category:Necklace MNHT PRE.2009.0.239.1, etc.). Je ne suis pas sûr d'avoir compris, désolé, tu penserais à une catégorie globale pour les colliers et dents percées de Toulouse ? Rama (talk) 14:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Oui sous le nom "parure" ce qui allégerai la présentation... --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Quelque chose comme Category:Necklaces in the Muséum de Toulouse collection of prehistory ? Rama (talk) 16:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

oui parfait!--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Bien, j'ai essayé de faire quelque chose, je ne sais pas si c'est ce à quoi tu pensais ? Rama (talk) 13:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

OK çà marche je vais verser les colliers et parures dans cette catégorie qui remplace (Muséum de Toulouse collection of prehistory), mais il me parait important de ne pas enlever les autres catégories qui sont toutes aussi importante comme (Category:Émile Cartailhac),[Category:Bronze Age jewellery] etc... --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Correction ! je viens de comprendre comment tu as bâtis la catégorisation, c'est parfait on reste sur ton axe. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Petit problème

Certaine pièce ne sont pas de la préhistoire mais de la paléontologie (Prafixe PAL) tel 'Flickr - Wikimedia France - PAL.2010.0.2.jpg' elles doivent être classé en 'Category:Muséum de Toulouse collection of paleontology' mais je n'arrive pas a le faire il y a un blocage... --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah oui, merci. Ca a l'air bon pour File:Flickr - Wikimedia France - PAL.2010.0.2.jpg, et j'ai corrigé File:Flickr - Wikimedia France - PAL.2010.0.5-c.jpg. N'hésite pas si tu en vois d'autres, et encore merci ! Rama (talk) 17:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Parfait les fossiles sont donc passé... vers les fossiles; tu les retrouveras pour la légende dès que Guillaume Fleury t'auras donné les informations, J'ai catégorisé l'ours que je connais, je ne connais pas le renard. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Hall Freud Jung in front of Clark 1909.jpg

Hello. Could you please help me understand what is the problem about the source of this image? It was taken in 1909, which means before 1923, so it's public domain in US, as I understand. Also, please notice that this is a very important image in the history of psychology, and many pages in many Wikipedias will be effected by its' deletation. Thank you, Ravit (talk) 19:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks OK, in fact, my mistake. I must have tagged this image with a stream of other images which lack an author and do not have the same excuse of "pre-1923 US". Rama (talk) 22:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I hope it's OK that I removed the template also from File:Hall Freud Jung in front of Clark 1909 - Jung cropped.jpg. Ravit (talk) 08:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. Thank you. 15:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Neolithic talc necklace - PRE.2009.0.237.1.IMG 1832.jpg.2009.0.237.1.img 1832.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 !--Jebulon 21:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Butterfield graphometer img 2601.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 QI & Useful --Archaeodontosaurus 20:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC) Did you try an "old red velvet" background like the original one ? Would be better IMO because of the red reflections on the metal.--Jebulon 21:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

File:ERC90_IMARA_17may07.JPG

File:ERC90_IMARA_17may07.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!

  — Jeff G. ツ 18:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

File:P33ARAGranville.jpg

File:P33ARAGranville.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!

  — Jeff G. ツ 18:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sagaie-PRE.2010.0.1.4-IMG 1799.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 QI & Useful -- Archaeodontosaurus 12:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Burial IMG 1858.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. Mattbuck 14:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Apple II IMG 4214.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Apple II IMG 4214.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 13:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

erreur d'aiguillage

Je me suis trompé dans mes demandes à Guillaume Fleury j'ai demandé un N° qui est à toi j'en ai profité pour modifier la fiche... [Lithic core - PRE 2009.0.191.1-a.rama.jpg] --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Merci beaucoup ! J'ai peur de l'ennuyer, mais je vais lui en demander un ou deux aussi, je crois. Merci encore ! Rama (talk) 15:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Deletion against consensus

I have requested undeletion of File:Hamid_Mir_interviewing_Osama_bin_Laden.jpg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

collier de perle

Les perles sont en stéatite Soapstone en anglais. Je me suis occupé de verser cette image dans quelques pages en français tu pourrais le faire aussi pour les différentes pages de stéatite dans les autres langues... C'est une belle photo! --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your images

(Poor english) Thanks for your images. If you want I can nominate File:Jack adaptor IMG 6580-retouched.jpg to QI. If you don't want, I will not do it. Pardon by the annoyances. Thanks--Miguel Bugallo 20:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to say that it is a good image--Miguel Bugallo 20:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion, it's always valuable to have criticism on QIs to ensure a high quality. Rama (talk) 07:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi

I am using one of your images at this entry on my (mostly) licentious poetry blog in Romanian. Thank you for publishing it on Commons. Per request I'm letting you know, though I don't know how useful such use would be for your record. If further communication is needed, you can contact me at ioana.dunea at gmail. 213.233.85.3 20:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)