User talk:Rama/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Saadiq-IMG 6207.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. --DeeMusil 04:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Saadiq-IMG 6218.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 23:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Bonjour !

Bonjour Rama,
ça fait bien longtemps...
Merci de ton intervention sur ma page concernant l'attaque frontale de Wladislaw (Taxiarchos) dont je n'ai pas compris l'objet initial.
Je crains que cela ne soit peine perdue, l'homme relançant sans cesse, en alimentant la chaudière et parallèlement m'accusant de nourrir des débats inutiles... Comme tu l'auras compris, 1) je ne veux pas entrer dans le débat d'opportunité sur ce type d'images, étant donné que, selon moi, c'est uniquement de la provocation et que le nominateur (et ses zélateurs) se complait dans un conflit dont il se nourrit visiblement; 2) j'avais simplement noté un défaut technique que j'ai souhaité relever, à partir du moment où l'image avait été immédiatement promue, sans réel examen selon moi, et là aussi pour des questions d'opportunité et non pour des raisons techniques; 3) j'ai eu le malheur dans mon commentaire de dire que j'étais bien conscient que mon opposition allait susciter un débat sans fin et sans intérêt sur un autre terrain. Je ne me suis pas trompé, il y a bien trois débats, un pour chaque image, et un troisième sur ma propre page, avec un excité qui me rentre dans le lard, je ne sais pas vraiment pourquoi, en invoquant les nazis de surcroit ...
Bref, je ne sais pas où on va, mais on y va. Je vois que tu as abandonné la muséographie lyonnaise pour la Franche-Comté musicale. Je t'avoue que je suis moins intéressé, mais j'apprends des choses avec tes photos, que je ne manque pas d'examiner avec attention, justement parce que je ne connais pas.
Après tout, c'est pour ça qu'on est là, non ?
Amicalement.--Jebulon (talk) 10:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Bonjour, et merci pour ton message !

J'ai eu des scrupules à te laisser seul face au Chevalier de la Liberté avec son courageux anti-nazisme (c'est beau, quand même, de savoir prendre position comme il le fait...), mais je me disais que j'allais « causer plus de troubles que ce que je visais à réduire ». L'ironie douce semble une forme d'humour trop raffinée pour être comprise de tous, c'est bien triste. Au moins pourras-tu relire Loi de Godwin avec ces merveilleux développements tous frais en tête, et pour le reste, rien à faire que d'ignorer. Le chien aboie, l'iconographe passe...

Pour ce qui est du dessin lui-même, je trouve que c'est un effort méritoire sur un sujet en réalité pas facile -- très délicat de faire du dessin érotique en couleur, et encore plus en imitant le style de quelqu'un d'autre. Mais c'est un avis purement personnel qui en vaut un autre.

J'ai eu la chance de bénéficier d'une accéditation de presse pour le festival des Eurockéennes grâce à Wikimédia-CH, c'est pourquoi j'ai rapidement envoyé mes photos pendant que j'avais les groupes bien frais en tête. Effectivement, ça ne vaut pas toujours les sceau-cylindres mésopotamiens (il y avait des groupes francophones particulièrement gnan-gnan), mais j'ai pu découvrir de jolies choses tout de même : Mars Red Sky m'a beaucoup plus, dans le genre Pink Floyd à ses débuts. Il doit me rester encore quelques photographies du musée gallo-romain à envoyer, mais il faudra que j'y retourne pour refaire des prises de vue correctes. A cet égard, tes photographies de tableaux à Versailles sont absolument renversantes ; s'il se refait un atelier graphique à Paris un jour, j'espère que tu pourras y dire deux mots sur ta méthode de traitement.

Merci encore et bonne continuation ! Rama (talk) 10:39, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Et ceux de Chantilly, t'aimes pas ceux de Chantilly ?--Jebulon (talk) 11:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh la si ! Mais je pense toujours beaucoup à Versailles parce que de nombreux tableaux sont apparemment entreposés au Trianon, mais pas exposés. Or, parmi ceux-ci, il y a un bon nombre d'incontournables de l'histoire navale française, qui est l'un de mes dadas. J'ai toujours l'espoir que quelqu'un en fasse de bonnes photographies. Rama (talk) 11:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Tu fais bien de me le dire. ça m'intéresse que ça t'intéresse, j'ai quelques trucs, dont un bouquin avec des gravures, il faut que je regarde ça de plus près. On ne sait jamais ! Finalement, je vais peut-être alors "poster" le bas-relief de l'épisode du "Vengeur", du monument de la République... Merci pour la référence au "point de Godwin", que je ne connaissais pas. Je m'en servirai !--Jebulon (talk) 14:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! AS350b Ecureuil F-MJCV-IMG 5138.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 09:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nick Oliveri-Kyuss-IMG 5770.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--Lmbuga 14:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Moriarty-IMG 7291.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. --Mbdortmund 16:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

AD

Bonjour, oui le sigle est ambigu et sa signification n'apparaît que si on creuse un peu l'histoire de l'épigraphie lyonnaise. La référence exacte est A. Allmer et P. Dissard. Musée de Lyon. Inscriptions antiques, Delaroche, Lyon, 5 vol., 1889-1893 Un compte rendu à sa sortie. Merci pour tes photos dans ce beau musée lyonnais. Cordialement, Rossignol Benoît (talk) 13:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Saadiq-IMG 6267.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. --Raghith 09:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! John Garcia-Kyuss-IMG 5772.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. --H005 10:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Saadiq-IMG 6281.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. --H005 13:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Richard Bellia IMG 7644b.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 classic portrait, I like it --Mbdortmund 21:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Moriarty-IMG 6873.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. --Mbdortmund 21:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Honey for Petzi IMG 7206.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. --Carschten 13:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Katerine IMG 6757.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 Yes. Et je suis sûr que ça te surprend que ce soit moi qui promeuve celle-là ! --Jebulon 22:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Anna Calva-IMG 6062.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, although sharpness is not ideal. --H005 21:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Keziah Jones-IMG 5263.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. --Mbdortmund 05:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Staff benda bilili-IMG 5475.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 cool --Carschten 16:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Moriarty-IMG 6846.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Moriarty-IMG 6846.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 21:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dixmude-IMG 8441.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 dust spot in the sky (see annot.)--Jebulon 15:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC) Fixed (hopefully), thank you very much ! -- Rama 16:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! RadioShack TRS-80 mod4-IMG 5778.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 A bit soft maybe, but good.--Jebulon 09:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

VI

Je regrette un peu ta monomanie pour QI alors que tes images seraient à mon sens bien mieux accueillies dans VI. Des deux label VI est à mes yeux le plus important. De plus, ces temps ci, il y a quelques tensions et ton avis sur de nombreux sujets serait utile. Non pas dans le sens d'un combat, mais au contraire d'un consensus. Merci de se que tu pourras faire... --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Bonjour, et merci pour ton attention.

Est-ce que je peux te demander comment tu envisages les VI ? Je n'ai jamais réellement compris l'intérêt de ce label, et si quelqu'un comme toi me dit le considérer comme important, c'est certainement que j'ai manqué quelque chose. Je serais vraiment curieux d'avoir ton avis.

Merci encore et bonne continuation ! Rama (talk) 06:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

« Une mauvaise photo qui rappelle vos traits vaut mieux qu'un beau paysage qui ne vous ressemble pas » Pierre Dac

Voilà ce qui pourrait le mieux caractérisé le Label. Une photo n’a de sens que par se quelle représente. J’ai vu passer, de ta part, une grande quantité de photographie qui ne pouvait prétendre au label QI du fait des conditions difficiles de prise de vue dans lesquelles tu les avais faites. Dans le même temps des photos (de qualités qui n’ont pas volées leur label) sont venue compléter des catégories pléthoriques.

La communauté te doit, au moins, plusieurs centaines de label VI. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Je vois l'argument, mais je ne conçois pas les labels dans ces termes. C'est moi qui offre des QI (ou des VI, ou des FP) à Commons, pas Commons qui m'offre des QI (quand à la prétendue communauté, il ne faut pas me lancer sur ce sujet...). Celles de mes photographies qui sont bonnes, j'essaye de leur faire obtenir le label de QI parce que ça les rend plus faciles à trouver pour les utilisateurs potentiels. Je crois que le faire ajoute de la valeur aux contributions et sert donc Commons.

A contrario, avoir la meilleure image sur un sujet, ça se voit à ce que l'image illustre son article. Et pour le coup, l'utilité du label ne me parait pas évidente. J'imagine qu'il y a la satisfaction du récipiendaire, et peut-être aussi que l'on peut citer son nombre de VIs pour justifier de sa crédibilité comme contributeur au sein de la « communauté ».

La vanité, j'y suis sensible comme tout un chacun : c'est pour cela que je tiens le compte de mes FPs, QIs et VIs. J'en tire parti pour m'encourager moi-même à atteindre certaines étapes et ça m'aide à fignoler un peu. Mais je ne cours pas après en tant que tel non plus, c'est juste un à-côté.

La crédibilité, en revanche, ne m'intéresse vraiment pas. Je n'essaye d'influer sur personne en tant que « membre de la communauté ». J'ai le bonheur d'avoir, dans une certaine mesure, la confiance et l'attention de gens comme toi, que je respecte et apprécie en tant que personnes, d'individu à individu. Je préfère de loin ça à une influence toute relative sur la foule sans visage d'un site Internet.

Ceci pour dire que je n'ai pas encore compris ce que le label VI apporte à Commons. Son existence motive peut-être certains utilisateurs à constribuer plus de photographies, auquel cas il aura justifié son existence ; mais je suis déjà motivé à publier des photographies, et je ne vois donc pas ce que je pourrais apporter d'intéressant aux VIs. Rama (talk) 14:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

C'est à peu de choses près mon opinion, y compris pour le sujet de la "communauté" (f...taise anglo-saxonne) si je peux me permettre (mais je crois que je le peux, étant particulièrement concerné par les "tensions" évoquées plus haut. J'ajoute que la plupart des débats en VI ne portent que sur la validité des domaines (scopes), non sur la "valeur" relative ou absolue, des images en elles-mêmes, et que c'est lassant à la longue. Ainsi, plusieurs photos (et même une seule !) du moindre organisme vivant peuvent constituer un domaine jugé valide, mais visiblement pas plusieurs versions d'une même œuvre d'art, où là aussi, pour l'utilisateur qui recherche dans "Commons" la meilleure image d'un sujet donné, il pourrait être opportun d'avoir un choix éclairé par des personnes qui se sont penchées sur le sujet. En ce sens, le label QI est pour moi plus éclairant: dans une catégorie (pas "domaine", mais bien "catégorie"), une "image de qualité" (tel que je conçois, peut-être à l'excès, ce label) est par le fait même une "image de valeur". Il faudrait juste être un peu plus "serré" à mon avis, en élargissant les critères à d'autres aspects que ceux seulement techniques (notamment la catégorisation: on devrait exiger au moins trois catégories adéquates pour chaque image, ou de l'identification: toute image, et pas seulement celles concernant la biologie ou la minéralogie, devrait être identifiée à son meilleur niveau possible. La règle existe, mais n'est qu'indicative et n'est globalement pas respectée). Mais ce n'est pas demain la veille, j'en conviens. Pour être en cohérence avec ce que je viens de dire, et en ce qui me concerne, mon action en QIC ne consiste pas seulement à "juger" en distribuant des bons points, mais aussi en suggérant souvent l'ajout d'une catégorie, d'une géolocalisation, ou même en le faisant moi-même quand le sujet m'intéresse (ça m'arrive tous les jours !), même si ce ne sont pas des règles imposées. J'essaie de rendre les "QI techniques" le plus "QI globales" possible, c'est pourquoi j'accorde désormais un soin tout particulier à mes descriptions. Ainsi je me rapproche de l'esprit initial des VI, je crois, lequel est désormais perverti par un Attila qui sévit aussi en FP, et avec lequel il est vain (désolé, Archaeodontosaurus) d'essayer de trouver un consensus. --Jebulon (talk) 09:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

J'ai vu pas mal de discours onctueux sur la prétendue communauté de la part de post-soixante-huitards gnangnans bien franchouillards, aussi je trouve un peu injuste d'attribuer toute la responsabilité de cette illusion aux anglo-saxons. C'est simplement une expression qui revient de façon incantatoire d'une part en forme de slogan dans les discours des instances dirigeantes de la Wikimedia Foundation (il faut bien qu'ils disent quelque chose, et cette tournure fait sympa), et de l'autre dans la bouche des pékins idéalistes qui l'y reprennent sans refléchir, et sont d'autant plus heureux de le faire qu'elle flatte leur sensibilité angéliste. En revanche, les clivages bien réels entre, par exemple, anglo-saxons et européens continentaux, participent à l'atomisation de la masse des contributeurs. Commons est particulièrement misérable sous cet aspect en ceci que les semblants d'institutions qui existent sur Wikipédia n'y ont pas cours; aussi, il n'y a rien pour faire ciment entre contributeurs ou donner une légitimité aux décisions. Problème classique que la frontière floue et savonneuse entre l'anarchie et le chaos. Rama (talk) 06:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Bonjour, Comme il semble que ce soit le salon où l'on cause des VI ici, je souhaite ajouter mon point de vue, et prie par avance Rama de bien vouloir m'excuser de m'inviter ainsi sur sa page de discussion.
Penser qu'"avoir la meilleure image sur un sujet, ça se voit à ce que l'image illustre son article" est un doux rêve, ou une incantation... Contribuant sur les deux projets Commons et WP, je peux attester qu'un très grand nombre d'articles a été créé en 2004-2005, et que leur iconographie n'a jamais été rafraîchie depuis. Inversement, beaucoup de contributeurs Commons déposent leurs images sans se soucier de leur utilisation par d'autres projets ensuite. Un de mes apports discrets, lorsque j'examine une image proposée en VI (que je vote ou pas, d'ailleurs), est de veiller à l'insérer de façon pertinente dans l'encyclopédie, en plusieurs langues (et aussi parfois dans WikiSpecies, Wikibooks, etc.). C'est d'ailleurs tout ce travail souterrain qui fait la réelle plus-value du projet VI, à mon avis : comme la catégorisation, la description et le géocodage des images font partie des critères d'évaluation, le service complet que j'offre en tant que "reviewer" (à l'insu des nominateurs le plus souvent), est d'améliorer tous ces points si nécessaire ; de plus, comme le sel des VI est la mise en confrontation avec d'autres images challengers, je m'attache à en trouver, sur Commons ou parfois même sur des WP locales, ce qui implique bien catégoriser, documenter et géocoder toutes les images visionnées. Au final, l'exercice peut être très exigeant pour les "reviewers", s'ils font bien leur boulot, mais c'est tout bénéfice pour Commons et pour les autres projets Wikimedia. Concernant les images de Rama, je me permets, sans vouloir l'offenser, d'exprimer le sentiment qu'un passage en VI serait souvent utile pour amender le titre, la description et les catégories d'images à grand potentiel documentaire mais à description lacunaire. Exemple : File:CNAM-IMG 0630.jpg, vue lors cette VIC (j'en ai simplement amélioré la catégorisation à cette occasion :-)... --Myrabella (talk) 12:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Tu es la très bienvenue, et merci pour ton point de vue.

Que les descriptions et la catégorisation soient précieuses, c'est l'évidence -- et comme les vérités premières, c'est bon à répéter. Je vois que le projet VI y contribue en attirant l'attention sur tel ou tel sujet périodiquement, et à ce titre à un effet bénéfique semblable à celui que je lui suppose d'encourageant à la création. Mais je ne suis toujours pas convaincu que l'attribution même du label VI soit une réelle plus-value : le label QI assure une bonne qualité (par exemple l'image est imprimable en A3, ou au moins A4); le label FP assure une qualité suffisante pour être reconnue par plus de 7 personnes (et que le sujet est suffisemment racoleur pour attirer l'attention d'autant...) ; l'utilisateur pourra faire son choix sans devoir examiner toutes les images à la loupe.

Qu'apporte VI ? La photo pourrait être mauvaise mais la moins mauvaise que nous ayions ; elle pourrait être la meilleure d'une courte tête, un autre candidat étant en fait préférable ; la libre définition du sujet donne parfois des effets étranges ; et le label n'est pas permanent. Au final, le label n'évite pas de travail à l'utilisateur.

De plus, comme on peut définir son sujet comme on veut et qu'il n'y a pas de critères de qualité absolus, les exigences sur la description prennent un rôle d'unique frein à la multiplication anarchique des VIs, y compris jusqu'à l'absurde -- genre exiger des coordonnées géographiques pour des personnes -- avec pour résultat une atmosphère de bureaucratie kafkaïenne qui ne donne guère l'impression d'effecture un travail utile. A contrario, lorsqu'on me met le nez dans ma balance des blancs en QI, il en résulte une meilleure image et j'ai l'impression d'avoir fait quelque chose.

J'en ressort avec l'impression que les VI aident de façon indirecte -- en attirant l'attention sur un sujet, en motivant des gens -- mais pas convaincu de leur valeur intrinséque. Cela dit, les VI sont indéniablement des adjuvants et c'est tant mieux si des utilisateurs comme toi ou Archaeodontosaurus s'en occupent. Rama (talk) 14:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Je trouve le moment favorable pour vous parler de la mayonnaise. La mayonnaise arrive à faire tenir ensemble des molécules d’eau et d’huile. C’est possible si on rajoute un tensioactif (l’œuf). Il n’y a pas besoin de beaucoup de tensioactif pour que la sauce prenne. C’est le but que je me suis fixé dans la vie : faire le tensioactif. Essayer de faire tenir ensemble des gens les plus disparates possibles. La saveur n’en sera que meilleure. Si nous nous retrouverons réuni sur cette page ce n’est pas un hasard. Il n’y a rien de mystérieux ni de mystique, la derrière, mais des personne de bonne volonté qui ont des prédispositions à écouter les autres, vous êtes aussi des tensioactifs. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

L'expression s'est démodée, mais " faire l'œuf " signifiait autrefois " faire l'idiot "... C'est vrai que je peux parfois faire ça très bien, tant mieux si ça peut être tensioactif...Je plaisante. Mon problème avec VI et FP, c'est la trop grande violence, la trop grande arrogance, le manque d'indulgence et l'expression péremptoire de quelques uns, assez peu nombreux il est vrai, mais qui suffisent à gâter mon plaisir au point de me faire sur-réagir, puis m'effacer. Je ne suis pas capable de résister à certaines provocations, ce qui m'a amené à être accusé par un tensioactif d'attaque personnelle, ce qui est un comble, en l'espèce. Mais passons.

Vouloir faire le "tensioactif" peut parfois n'être qu'illusion, au bout du compte. Une simple étude statistique du rôle actuel de chacun en VI, par exemple, le démontre: qui propose des images et à quelle proportion? Qui supporte des propositions et à quelle proportion ? Qui s'abstient systématiquement de tout soutien et à quelle proportion? Qui rejette et à quelle proportion ? Si l'on considère les "assidus" actuels, qui fait quoi ? Il faudrait être aveugle ou de mauvaise foi pour ne pas voir les réponses... Chacun est toujours dans son propre registre, ce qui fait perdre beaucoup de sa crédibilité au projet tant les attitudes de chacun sont prévisibles. Où mène la tensioaction, subséquemment ? Un peu nulle part, non ? Ou bien toujours dans la même direction...

Notons qu'en FP, ce ne sont pas 7 soutiens (règle formelle) mais bien quasiment 10 ( règle réelle) qui sont nécessaires à une promotion, étant donné les rejets systématiques d'au moins 3 votants, suivis par 1 ou 2 zélateurs fluctuants au gré des sujets...

Par ailleurs, nul besoin des VI pour s'atteler au géocodage ou à la catégorisation. Je me démène pas mal là dessus en QI, certes sans grand succès pédagogique, mais toujours avec la même envie et le même intérêt: on ne se refait pas, moi j'aime bien qu'un prie-dieu wurtembergeois ou une chaire westphalienne soit bien rangée là où il faut, j'suis comme ça... Et ça m'amuse ! Je le fais souvent moi aussi sans rien en dire... Peu à peu, certains en QIC se mettent à solliciter des géocodages alors que la règle ne l'exige pas, je trouve ça très bien. Et je passe parfois plus de temps à bien légender mes images qu'à les prendre et les traiter... C'est vrai que je suis moins porté à l'illustration d'articles, mais on nous serine tant, en FP et en QI, que "Commons" n'est pas et n'a pas à être à la remorque de WP, que j'ai parfois le faiblesse de laisser penser que je pourrais être d'accord avec ça... Même s'il me parait dès lors peu cohérent que la notoriété d'une image soit mesurée presque exclusivement à sa présence (illustration ou article...) dans de multiples WP (effet pervers de lanouvelle rubrique 'usedin' en VI) ...À cette aune-là, mon récent " Concert champêtre" de Corot pourrait être une excellente image de valeur, ce tableau ayant des articles dédiés, sauf que c'est artificiel à mon avis. Sans compter qu'il arrive de voir une bonne illustration immédiatement "revertée" par la version initiale, moins bonne, quand on tente de " rafraîchir "...je le sais, je viens de tester !

Voila, mes bons amis, l'état de mes réflexions nocturnes...Vous lire, ici ou ailleurs, est un vrai plaisir.

bien cordialement à vous trois--Jebulon (talk) 01:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

C'est vrai que ce n'est pas d'aujourd"hui que tu es mécontent du projet VI (memories...). Mais pour finir sur une touche culinaire, ArcheoD. m'excusera de le reprendre : cela ne fera pas du tout une mayonnaise si nous sommes tous des œufs, mais une omelette, voire, dans le pire des cas, des oeufs brouillés ! Aussi, je vous propose une petite redistribution des rôles : si ArcheoD. est le jaune d'oeuf tensionactif, alors moi je suis l'huile (dans les rouages ou sur le feu, c'est selon), Jebulon la moutarde, et Rama l'indispensable trait acide, citron ou vinaigre, comme il préfère ;-) Bien à vous, --Myrabella (talk) 08:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Salute-IMG 8817.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 is a "lieutenant-colonel" !! But good. I've corrected the File desc. page.--Jebulon 20:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC) Darn, yes. And from a mounted unit, at that. -- Rama 21:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC) Trois blancs, deux jaunes. A nos chevaux ! A nos femmes ! etc etc...--Jebulon 22:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tiken Jah Fakoly-IMG 5342.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 although noise could be improved! --H005 22:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nick Brown 7125.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments OK, although not the sharpest. --H005 20:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! FAMAS-G2-IMG 8894-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 Bit unsharp, but excellent cut-off against the background. --H005 22:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Queen of the Stone Edge-Dean Fertita-IMG 6596.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}}}

File:Corneille-Negative0-08-6A(1).jpg

File:Corneille-Negative0-08-6A(1).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!

Tangopaso (talk) 19:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Mogno_mg_4211.jpg

File:Mogno_mg_4211.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!

Simisa (talk) 05:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Mogno_mg_4212.jpg

File:Mogno_mg_4212.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!

Simisa (talk) 05:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Mogno_mg_4213.jpg

File:Mogno_mg_4213.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!

Simisa (talk) 05:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Mogno_mg_4214.jpg

File:Mogno_mg_4214.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!

Simisa (talk) 05:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Mogno_mg_4216.jpg

File:Mogno_mg_4216.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!

Simisa (talk) 05:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Mogno_mg_4218.jpg

File:Mogno_mg_4218.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!

Simisa (talk) 05:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Mogno_mg_4219.jpg

File:Mogno_mg_4219.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!

Simisa (talk) 05:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Mogno_mg_4220.jpg

File:Mogno_mg_4220.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!

Simisa (talk) 05:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Groupement de fusiliers marins de Toulon-IMG 9008.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.--Jebulon 22:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 519GTM-IMG 8986.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 like the sun reflection on the medals ! --Jebulon 23:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Motorhead-IMG 6368.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. --Taxiarchos228 12:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Saadiq-IMG 6289.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 too --Taxiarchos228 12:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

		Good job !
		Here is a cookie.
		from Lilyu

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dominique Esquivié-IMG 9281.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 Can you change the white balance? I am finding it quite bluish. --Jovianeye 03:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC) Colourblind me... thanks, fixed! Rama 10:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC) Much better now. --Jovianeye 11:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Les hurlements de Leo-IMG 5156.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 Wrong description again (This is a person, not a band.) Please fix. -- H005 20:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC) The name of the individual musician was already in the file description. -- Rama 07:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC) OK, sorry, I didn't notice! -- H005 11:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Aaron-IMG 7431.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 Wrong description again (This is a person, not a duet.) Please fix. -- H005 20:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC) There you go. Rama 07:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC) OK, thanks! --H005 11:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Mars red sky-IMG 5803.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 Wrong description again (This is a person, not a band.) Please fix. -- H005 20:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC) There you go. Rama 07:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC) OK, thanks! --H005 11:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cheers IMG 5697.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  Question Who or what is "Cheers" here? Not this person, I guess? -- H005 20:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC) [1] -- Rama 21:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC) That doesn't help much, sorry. A proper description is required for an image to become QI - currently it's insufficient. -- H005 21:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC) Any better now? Rama 10:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC) I've added some more info. --H005 11:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Mogno

Toujours soucieux d'animer ta page je me demandais pourquoi ces images sont proposées à la suppression et ne peut on pas aller voter? --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Apparemment la Panoramafreiheit suisse ne couvre pas l'intérieur des bâtiments. J'imagine que l'on peut voter (enfin donner son avis) sur les pages des reqûetes correspondantes. Bonne continuation ! -- Rama (talk) 20:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 519GTM-IMG 8981.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 --Carschten 09:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Moriarty-IMG 7325.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. --Carschten 09:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Moriarty-IMG 6790.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. --Carschten 09:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Forbin-IMG 8405.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 --Gzzz 08:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dixmude-IMG 8532.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 --Gzzz 08:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Moriarty-IMG 7295.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 portrait. --Ianare 00:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Richard Perle IMG 1281.JPG

This media may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Richard Perle IMG 1281.JPG, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work. If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Richard_Perle-2.jpg

File:Richard_Perle-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!

Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Moriarty-IMG 6896.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 bad light (blown hair in background; face shady), but very good quality --Carschten 09:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Bug

tu as un bug dans ta dernière nomination en QI mais je ne le trouve pas --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay?

Hi, Rama. See. Okay? Best regards, --JMCC1 (talk) 15:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello,

yes, that is indeed my intent. I'll put a note in the history to confirm. Thank you very much for noticing this snag. Cheers! Rama (talk) 15:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Err, no, it's actually by a friend of mine using one of my cameras, so the licence is a bit different, I'll ut the right one right away. Thanks again! Rama (talk) 15:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, --JMCC1 (talk) 07:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Janisjoplin.png

File:Janisjoplin.png 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!

Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Head of a Tanagra figurine-MDR Marseille-IMG 5194.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. --Raghith 05:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Plate Drag 4 22-MDR Marseille-IMG 5106.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. --Raghith 05:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ceramic African marmit Hayes 197-MDR Marseille-IMG 5109.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. --Raghith 05:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bucchero nero kantharos-MDR Marseille-IMG 5110.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. --Raghith 05:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

C'est moi qui ai la plus grosse (chambre)

Juste un mot en passant, pour frimer avec ma nouvelle acquisition : une Sinar F (4x5), avec un objectif apparemment pas terrible pour l'instant... J'ai pas encore de quoi développer donc je ne l'ai pas encore vraiment essayée. Bonnes vacances si tu en as, --Eusebius (talk) 20:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Wah ! :)

Ca va être pratique pour photographier les émeutes en Angleterre ! (Cela dit, aux Eurockéennes, il y avait un photographe qui se promenait partout avec une chambre de ce genre et un Hasselblad).

Tu sais déjà comment tu veux les scanner ? Tu arrives à quelle résolution utile, avec ?

Bonne continuation et amuse-toi bien ! Rama (talk) 07:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Pour les scanner j'ai déjà un Epson V700, que j'utilise pour mes films moyen format (je suis en train de reconstituer un Hasselblad d'ailleurs). Avec un film de bonne qualité j'arrive à un peu moins de 2000 dpi "utiles", donc pour du 4x5 on peut viser le 8k x 10k pixels. Pour l'instant c'est plutôt le développement qui me pose problème, je ne trouve pas de labo qui développe les plans films par chez moi et je n'ai pas encore trouvé de cuve de développement adaptée. À suivre... --Eusebius (talk) 07:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Coucou

• 
• 
• 
• 

Salut, tu m'avais pas dit que tu bossais sur les sous marins en ce moment ? Le US National Archives bot a uploadé pas mal de trucs sur la WWII, y compris des trucs de marine. --Lilyu (talk) 01:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

File:"A Frenchman weeps as German soldiers march into the French capital, Paris, on June 14, 1940, after the Allied armies ha - NARA - 535892.tif

This is not what no-source tags are for. Why cannot you make a regular deletion request, if you want this file deleted? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

No response? Just reverting without discussion? Is this how an administrator is supposed to operate? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

See Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Admin_Rama_and_the_weeping_Frenchman. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Leica M3 mg 3628.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 macro--Lmbuga 08:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Oued el Kebir-IMG 9352-9353.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. --Carschten 20:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Amphore neck from Brindisi-MDR Marseille-IMG 5184.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 05:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Pieter Kuiper complaint

Pieter Kuiper has made a complaint against you at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#Admin Rama and the weeping Frenchman.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked for a duration of 1 day

You have been blocked from editing Commons for a duration of 1 day for the following reason: {{{2}}}. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may do so after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may add {{unblock|(enter your reason here) ~~~~}} below this message explaining clearly why you should be unblocked. See also the block log. For more information, see Appealing a block.

Well, there were enough attacks on other users by you for this day. Cool down already. Personal attacks are unacceptable neither for ordinary users nor for admins. Trycatch (talk) 21:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Landesmuseum Wurttemberg-IMG 5346.JPG

This media was probably deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Landesmuseum Wurttemberg-IMG 5346.JPG, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:Landesmuseum Wurttemberg-IMG 5346.JPG]]). If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work. If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

– Adrignola talk 22:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Landesmuseum Wurttemberg-IMG 5345.JPG

This media was probably deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Landesmuseum Wurttemberg-IMG 5345.JPG, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:Landesmuseum Wurttemberg-IMG 5345.JPG]]). If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work. If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

– Adrignola talk 22:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

File tagging File:Landesmuseum Wurttemberg-IMG 5346.JPG

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Landesmuseum Wurttemberg-IMG 5346.JPG. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Landesmuseum Wurttemberg-IMG 5346.JPG]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

– Adrignola talk 16:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

File tagging File:Landesmuseum Wurttemberg-IMG 5330.JPG

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Landesmuseum Wurttemberg-IMG 5330.JPG. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Landesmuseum Wurttemberg-IMG 5330.JPG]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

– Adrignola talk 16:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

File tagging File:Landesmuseum Wurttemberg-IMG 5327.JPG

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Landesmuseum Wurttemberg-IMG 5327.JPG. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Landesmuseum Wurttemberg-IMG 5327.JPG]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

– Adrignola talk 16:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Spearhead-IMG 5357.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Spearhead-IMG 5357.jpg, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:Spearhead-IMG 5357.jpg]]). If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work. If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

– Adrignola talk 16:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

User page

Hello Rama, I was wondering if you could create a user page which lists the facts that you are an administrator and oversighter. Although it is not mandatory, it would help people to know what you do around here. Language proficiency would also be nice to know. Thanks. Kaldari (talk) 02:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Kaldari (talk) 22:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

My thanks, also. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Template:Charsfrancais

Template:Charsfrancais 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 template, 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. 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!

Please also note Commons:Deletion requests/Photos by Claude Balmefrezol uploaded by Rama. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Francis turbine-IMG 4993.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--Lmbuga 01:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The almost free barnstar !

	Free culture barnstar
	Thanks for creating the most awesome free culture logo since Tux and fighting for not letting Wikipedia becoming the almost free encyclopedia. Léna (talk) 18:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Rama/Front de Libération des Œuvres

Beuh pourquoi c’est rouge ? Jean-Fred (talk) 19:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Ptolemy I - Ptolemy IV (rename)

Hi Rama. File:Protocole of Ptoleme I-MBA Lyon 1969-188-IMG 0219.jpg is Ptolemy IV, see Ptolémée IV, and File:Protocole of Ptoleme IV-MBA Lyon 1969-187-IMG 0220.jpg is Ptolemy I, see Ptolémée I. Best regards, --JMCC1 (talk) 15:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Nu-anonyme.jpg

Hi, could you please provide a source for this image? I'm afraid I find it quite unlikely it's own work when it's from the 19th century. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Horloge-republicaine1.jpg

File:Horloge-republicaine1.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!

Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Decharge-bouteilles-02.jpg

File:Decharge-bouteilles-02.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!

Missvain (talk) 04:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Male_masturbation_1.jpg

File:Male_masturbation_1.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!

Gegensystem (talk) 19:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

photo de Tiffany Schneuwly

Je remarque par hasard que les informations associées à cette image] contiennent plusieurs fois les mêmes informations (doublons), aussi je te le signale.
Il y a aussi un texte associé Cette œuvre est un logiciel libre qui semble non approprié
Et, par curiosité, y a t il associé à l'image une autorisation de diffusion de l'image, de la part de la personne photographiée ? via [2] / OTR par ex
Bien à toi, et merci pour tes images de pièces de musées, souvent très belles et pédagogiques. --F. Lamiot (talk) 20:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, la question de la séparation ou non entre données et programmes, ça remonte à Turing et von Neumann.

Pas de documents écrits, je me suis entretenu qu'oralement avec les sujets.

Bonne continuation ! Rama (talk) 09:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Canon-musee-marine-2.jpg

Hello, I wonder how do you know that this image depicts a Category:Hotchkiss 37 mm Revolving Cannon?--Avron (talk) 19:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

It is a mere guess. You probably know better. Rama (talk) 09:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Salut!

Bon retour dans la page des QIC !

Tu m'y as manqué. Je me sentais un peu seul face à certaines hostilités germaniques !

C'est bien que la guitare t'ait démangé un peu.--Jebulon (talk) 00:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Tu me fais rougir !

J'espère avoir quelques photos amusantes d'ordinateurs et de calculateurs dans les prochains temps, croisons les doigts... et plus tard, des bateaux. J'admire tes photos de la Tour Eiffel, arriver à ressourcer un sujet tellement rabâché, il faut le faire !

Merci pour ton mot, et bonne continuation à toi. Rama (talk) 10:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow la page utilisateur ! Très intéressant.

Bon, maintenant, il faudrait peut-être que tu aides à résorber le passif des images pas encore "reviewed in QIC". J'essaie d'en commenter plus que j'en propose, mais il y a du retard. Au boulot ! --Jebulon (talk) 23:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Goth-p1010614.jpg

Him Rama, is this image still needed? --Túrelio (talk) 19:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I suppose it's not. Rama (talk) 08:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! TI SR-52-IMG 0389.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. --Taxiarchos228 06:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Rockwell AIM-65-IMG 0472.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. --Taxiarchos228 06:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! HP-85-IMG 0439.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. --Taxiarchos228 06:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Epsitec Smaky 6-IMG 0431.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. --Taxiarchos228 06:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Commodore 2001 Series-IMG 0448b.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. --Berthold Werner 12:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Thun vs Lausanne-IMG 0177.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 Funny and good catch.--Jebulon 15:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! HP-85-IMG 0440-grad.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 Oldie but Goldie. Good photograph. --High Contrast 00:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

FYI

Hello, your image File:Espadon img 2408.jpg has been used in a book without author and licence. Details on de-WP -- Martina talk 22:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello,

weird, it's really not a good photograph (unlike yours, which are truely excellent); I'd taken it in case we could somehow do a stitching with its siblings, or if it contained significant details that could prove useful afterwards. I wonder what they've wanted to do with it. You really have to expect the unexpected with these editors, don't you?

Cheers! Rama (talk) 22:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Beyer cryptographic watch-IMG 0565.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--Jebulon 10:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Thun vs Lausanne-IMG 9946.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. --Carschten 14:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Enigma-IMG 0493-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 Very good and interesting.--Jebulon 22:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Enigma-IMG 0484-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 Good quality and I like this calculation maschines --Taxiarchos228 18:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)" I like " is a personal leaning, isn't it ?--Jebulon 19:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC) it is, but not basis of my judging --Taxiarchos228 20:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Enigma-IMG 0486-black.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. --Taxiarchos228 18:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hagelin CX-52-IMG 0568-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 Very good and interesting.--Jebulon 22:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! CD-57-IMG 0540-black.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. --Taxiarchos228 19:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC) The photo is very good but there is a little white "halo" around the object, i think, a white or transparent background is better ??? --Ralf Roletschek 19:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Enigma-IMG 0498-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 Good quality. --Taxiarchos228 15:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Enigma-IMG 0504-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 Good quality. --Taxiarchos228 15:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! M209B-IMG 0556.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. --Berthold Werner 17:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! M209B-IMG 0557.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 to me--Lmbuga 21:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cryptographic sliding rule-IMG 0533.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 18:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Portrait of a humanist

Hi Rama, is it possible to tell me where you took this picture? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Portrait_of_a_humanist_mg_0132.jpg

Thank you!

In the Musée des Beaux-Arts de Strasbourg (see the category). Cheers! Rama (talk) 21:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

merci beaucoup!

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! NEMA-IMG 0520.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. --Mbdortmund 13:48, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! NEMA-IMG 0522.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. --Mbdortmund 13:48, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! NEMA-IMG 0518.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. --Mbdortmund 13:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! NEMA-IMG 0526.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. --Mbdortmund 13:48, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! CD-57-IMG 0541-black.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. --Mbdortmund 03:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! CD-57-IMG 0542-black.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. --Mbdortmund 03:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sphynx-IMG 0586.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. --Mbdortmund 17:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

File:DessinPourDarkoneko.jpg

File:DessinPourDarkoneko.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!

Andre Engels (talk) 14:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! M209B-IMG 0558.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 IMO.--ArildV 16:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! M209B-IMG 0553-black.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 Some noise but otherwise good and high resolution.--ArildV 16:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cryptographic table-IMG 0562-0564.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 --Archaeodontosaurus 13:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Male masturbation 1.jpg

Hello, you have added a sexual image to Wikimedia Commons which somebody has tried to delete, fortunately it was kept this time around, but that doesn't mean that people will not try to delete it again often working from the position that every image that doesn't follow their moral code must go.

I would like to thank you for helping to develop Commons and making it grow, it is unfortunate that not every image about sex is allowed to remain here. That is just another reason to rejoice that your contribution has been kept. But i thought that you might be interested that there are projects which are more interested in sexually explicit and freely licenced material, like Freedom Porn which distributes its content under Free Art Licence or in public domain. You may want to check it out and see if you would be interested in uploading there as well as here. VolodyA! V Anarhist (talk) 2011Nov16 14:02

Thank you for your interest.

My images are not meant to have any erotic value ; erotism is an extremely difficult technical challenge, and I have never seen myself as being up to it, nor did I ever consider rising my abilities to such a level.

Cheers! Rama (talk) 16:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Enigma simulator-IMG 0515-black.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 quality.--ArildV 09:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Enigma-IMG 0487-black.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 Useful. Good composition/depth of field/exposure. --Wsiegmund 04:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Gretacoder 210-IMG 0576-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 Good quality. --Berthold Werner 18:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hagelin CX-52-IMG 0570-black.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. --Coyau 12:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! NEMA-IMG 0523.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. --Mbdortmund 02:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! NEMA-IMG 0525.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. --Mbdortmund 02:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! NEMA-IMG 0524b.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. --Mbdortmund 02:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Mace IMG 3823.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 useful contributions from different museums... --Mbdortmund 03:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hagelin CX-52-IMG 0573-black.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 the "cutting out" is not so good. perhaps a grey background would be better. --Berthold Werner 18:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Category:Arnald_George

Category:Arnald_George has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Sammyday (talk) 03:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Commodore PET 2001 computer

The image of Commodore PET 2001 computer seems to have colour noise visible on its screen. Same with Commodore 128D, its daiplay has also hot spots. Atari 400 could be sharper. --PereslavlFoto (talk) 14:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I've tried to improve them a bit according to your remarks. Cheers! Rama (talk) 16:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Apple Lisa-2-IMG 1730.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. Tu as tjs ce pixel "rouge" brûlé, là il est sur l'écran.--Jebulon 16:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC) Je viens d'en enlever plein grâce à toi. Mon capteur doit être adolescent, il fait de l'acnée :/ Rama 16:33, 27 December 2011 (UTC) L'âge ingrat...--Jebulon 23:50, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Thomson MO5-IMG 1732.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!--PereslavlFoto 14:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Brother WP1-IMG 1750.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 Clean and fine image.--PereslavlFoto 14:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Commerce de Marseille-IMG 5773.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 08:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Scharnhorst-2-A503-FM30-50.jpg

File:Scharnhorst-2-A503-FM30-50.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!

79.221.104.232 21:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

File:Graffiti-IMG 5737.jpg

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Graffiti-IMG 5737.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 Beautiful artwork. --ANGELUS 21:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Commodore 128D-IMG 1726.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. --ANGELUS 01:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Atari 400-IMG 1720.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. --ANGELUS 01:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

File talk:Musee-de-lArmee-IMG 0976.jpg

Hi Rama,

I have left a message at File talk:Musee-de-lArmee-IMG 0976.jpg that you may be interested in.

Yaris678 (talk) 13:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)