User talk:Bourgeois.A

-> NOUVELLE PAGE DE DISCUSSION

-> NEW TALKING PAGE

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Bourgeois.A!

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki. Getting help More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.

Goodies, tips, and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities. You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads. Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~. To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg. You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account. There are several tools to upload files. Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful. Made a mistake? Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it. Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

-- 09:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! M (266)Chevalement du puits Simon II..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 Il faudrait couper un peu à droite et en bas.--Jebulon 14:21, 27 November 2011 (UTC) Merci des améliorations. Je ne suis pas fan du noir-et-blanc, mais c'est une QI.--Jebulon 15:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

File:PR4-06-2012.jpg

Salut,

ton image d'une araignée parait bien interessant mais les collègues aiment toujours avoir une identification de l'espèce (en latin)... que je ne suis pas capable de donner. Pourrais tu? -- Aisano (talk) 21:49, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Salut, ce n'est pas un caprice des collègues, mais une règle. Tes photos sont visuellement très jolies, mais n'ont aucune chance de passer en QI si elles ne sont pas décrites correctement ni, a fortiori, catégorisées, comme c'est le cas de trois sur quatre.... Pour obtenir de vrais succès, je te conseille vivement la lecture des règles, c'est utile et te permettra de progresser.

bien cordialement, --Jebulon (talk) 21:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Merci, je comprend, mais je ne m'y connais pas trop en insecte et araignée... Je vais essayer de chercher.Cordialement,Bourgeois.A (talk) 22:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

C'est mieux là ?Bourgeois.A (talk) 22:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

+http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PR1-06-2012.jpg +http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PR2-06-2012.jpg

Bonsoir et merci, si mon conseil t'as servi, tant mieux. -- Aisano (talk) 23:00, 23 June

C'est sûr que c'est mieux (si c'est juste !!). Un petit effort sur tes noms de fichier (ils doivent avoir un sens, PR1-06-2012 n'en a pas, encore une règle...) et ça sera parfait !

Je me suis autorisé quelques corrections orthographiques sur ta page de wikipédia, pardon pour l'indiscrétion...--Jebulon (talk) 23:07, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

 

Merci des conseils et de la correction, j'ai fait les dernières modifs nécessaires. Bonne continuation ! Bourgeois.A (talk) 05:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Marguerite Leucanthemum vulgare-06-2012.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 Needs species identification (Scientific name). Should be written in description here, not only in filename. -- JDP90 05:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC) I think the name was there; only the quotes to make it italics are missing. Added. --Jkadavoor 07:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Images remarquables

Bonjour,

Vous devriez lire Commons:Guide des images et Commons:Featured picture candidates avant de proposer des images. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 18:15, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

J'essaie juste d'aider. En fait, la qualité des images n'est pas si mauvaise. Avec un peu de soin dans la présentation et de persévérance, ça devrait le faire :

1. Mettez un nom qui veut dire quelque chose : File:M (237).jpg
2. Ajoutez la géolocalisation [1].
3. Faites une description complète de l'image. N'oubliez pas la description quand vous nominez une image.

Cordialement, Yann (talk) 07:30, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Puits-Arthur-06-2012 152.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI for me. -- JLPC 17:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

SET en VI

Tu as deux options : soit l'historique du site, soit l’état du site aujourd'hui. Voire, si tu peux le faire, faire les photos avant/après ce qui serait le plus juste. Ne te presse pas choisi 4 images qui te semblent le mieux à même de décrire ton sujet et on fera un scope en fonction de ton choix. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:15, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Je préfère parler de l'état su site aujourd'hui. Voilà quelques photos possibles :

• 
  Vue depuis le village avec le clocher.
• 
  La cheminée.
• 
  Le sous-sol d'une des salle de machine d'extraction.
• 
  Les ruines.
• 
  Le seul bâtiment encore équipé d'un toit (le mieux préserver).

Ton avis ? Elle ont toutes été prisent par moi, le même jour. PS : Merci de m'aider !

Le choix est recevable, à condition que toutes les images aient un géocodage (ce n'est pas encore le cas)

le scope pourrait être : Puits Arthur de Buyer Magny-Danigon, France.

(Dans les légendes de tes photos "Magny-Danigon" devrait apparaître tu peux même faire un lien Magny-Danigon)

Donne un titre à ton SET et du lance la procédure.

Je ne te garanti pas le succès, Thomas Bresson à fait également de bonnes images du site. Mais il faut se lancer ce sera toujours pour toi une expérience nouvelle. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Memorial of the disaster of 16 December 1950.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 Could you add an english description? Poco a poco 09:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

VI

Bien. Les images se placent en fin de liste dans VI, j'y ai remédie. Il faut que dans le scope il y ai une categorie; tant pour le monument aux morts que pour le SET. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

OK pour le SET j'ai pris la liberté de modifier le scope en le rattachant a la catégorie, inspire t'en pour ton monument aux morts... --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Unidentified Apoidea on Centaurea jacea 06-2012.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Memorial of the disaster of 16 December 1950 in the gallery of Fourchie Collieries Ronchamp in Haute-Saône (eastern France)..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment Please link the scope to a relevant category or gallery page for reviewer convenience. Thanks, cmadler (talk) 14:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
•  Support There is no category in a proposal to the label. I removed it. The scope is a bit long but admissible. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 21:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Inscription-puits de l'Etançon.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI for me. -- JLPC 19:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Puits-Arthur-06-2012 010.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI for me. -- JLPC 07:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Image "Cité minière des Epoisses"

Bonjour,

Je me suis permis d'apporter quelques petits changements à votre belle photo de la cité minière des Epoisses. J'ai enlevé la vague tache dans le ciel en haut vers la gauche, et surtout j'ai redressé le léger effet de perspective qui faisait "pencher" les lignes verticales. J'ai utilisé pour cela le programme Photoshop Elements. Je n'ai pas enregistré ces modifications par dessus votre fichier originel, qui est donc resté inchangé, mais j'ai simplement chargé un nouveau fichier en ajoutant le mot "edit" au nom. Libre à vous de proposer éventuellement le nouveau fichier comme candidat QI. Malheureusement, je ne pourrai pas voter "pour": étant moi-même maintenant un peu partie concernée, ce ne serait pas sportif. Cordialement, MJJR (talk) 15:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC).

Merci pour votre intervention, je vais re-proposé l'image ce soire je pense. Bonne continuation, Bourgeois.A (talk) 16:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Set Promotion

Congratulations!
The set of images you nominated for valued image set was reviewed and has now been promoted to the Valued image set: Arthur de Buyer coal mine ruins.

It is considered to be the most valued set of images on Commons within the scope:
Arthur de Buyer coal mine ruins.
If you would like to nominate another image set, please do so at Valued images candidates.

--MrPanyGoff 20:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Photo houillères de Ronchamp

J'ai regardé votre photo des houillères de Ronchamp et tout me semble en ordre: la tache de lumière dans le bas a disparu. Mais le problème que vous mentionnez ne m'est pas inconnu. J'ai éprouvé exactement la même chose il y a quelque temps. Apparemment, lorsqu'on apporte un changement à une image que se trouve déjà un certain temps sur Commons (quelques mois ou quelques années), le changement ne s'affiche pas immédiatement. Ce qui donne l'impression (erronée) que le changement n'a pas été enregistré. Alors on essaye de nouveau et encore, comme vous l'avez fait. Je me demande si de tels changements ne doivent pas être avalisés par un administrateur de Commons avant d'être visibles. De toute façon, en de tels cas il suffit de patienter quelques heures ou quelques jours, et généralement tout s'arrange. Cordialemant -- MJJR (talk) 20:43, 21 November 2012 (UTC).

Merci pour l'info. Cordialement. Bourgeois.A (talk) 20:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Autopatrol given

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have granted autopatrol rights to your account; the reason for this is that I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy and experienced to have your contributions automatically marked as "reviewed". This has no effect on your editing, it is simply intended to make it easier for users that are monitoring Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones like yours. In addition, the Flickr upload feature and an increased number of batch-uploads in UploadWizard, uploading of freely licensed MP3 files, overwriting files uploaded by others and an increased limit for page renames per minute are now available to you. Thank you. INeverCry 22:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

D'accord. Merci. Bourgeois.A (talk) 22:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sony NEX-5N with 18-55.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 14:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sony NEX-5N and E-mount lens camera.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 14:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sony NEX-5N with pencake 16.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments OK. --Mattbuck 10:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Tes nominations en "Image de Valeur"

Salut Bourgeois.A

Je viens de voir tes nominations en "candidats aux images de valeur".

Je voudrais te faire deux observations, l'une sur la forme, l'autre sur le fond.

Sur la forme: contrairement à la page FPC, les nominations s'ajoutent à la fin de la liste, et ne se placent pas au dessus... C'est différent, ne me demande pas pourquoi, mais c'est comme ça. Donc il faudrait que tu les retires de là où tu les as mises.

Sur le fond: tu as choisi à chaque fois le même nom de domaine (le "scope"). Or, par définition puisque c'est le but de cette page, il ne peut y avoir qu'une seule image d'un même domaine qui puisse être distinguée. Donc ça n'est pas possible, comment veux-tu que nous choisissions quel photo de cet appareil "a la plus grande valeur dans "Commons" ?

Tu as alors deux possibilités. La première, c'est de "réduire" le domaine (scope) de chaque image, en ajoutant par exemple pour chacune la nature de l'objectif monté sur l'appareil. Je ne suis pas sûr que ce soit accepté: on ne peut pas "distinguer" comme VI chaque appareil photo du marché, chacun avec chaque objectif du marché, on n'en finirait plus ! Le "scope" doit être, selon la règle, ni trop large, ni trop étroit.

L'autre possibilité, c'est de proposer un "set", c'est à dire de mettre ensemble tes images, et de proposer la série complète d'un seul coup (va voir en bas de page, tu auras des exemples). Là, à mon avis, c'est parfait. Comme tes photos sont très bonnes, il n'y aura aucune discussion et ton "set" sera aisément promu (s'il est complet). En plus, c'est plus difficile, et donc plus prestigieux, d'être récompensé pour un "set". Pour exemple, je dois tourner autour de 160 VI, mais je n'ai que neuf sets promus...

J'espère que je suis clair dans mes explications. Si tu as besoin d'aide, n'hésite pas à me demander.

Enfin, j'ai très envie de m'acheter cet appareil depuis un moment déjà, comme complément de mon "Reflex" SONY α 550. Si tu en es le propriétaire, que peux-tu m'en dire ?

Merci et à bientôt,--Jebulon (talk) 18:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

PS: s'agissant de photos dites "de studio" (il faut le préciser dans la description), pas besoin de géocode.--Jebulon (talk) 18:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

re salut.

De bonnes âmes compétentes se chargent désormais de faire fonctionner les "sets" de façon manuelle, et donc ça marche de nouveau.

Merci pour tes conseils, j'hésite avec le RX100...--Jebulon (talk) 21:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Bon ben encore merci! Tu as mis le doigt sur mes hésitations. Maintenant, je suis tellement habitué à l'écran mobile que j'aurais de la peine à m'en passer. Je ne joue jamais en automatique, donc les menus ne me font pas peur...--Jebulon (talk) 22:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Puits Arthur 19-02-2013 (3).JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 19:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Puits Arthur 19-02-2013 (2).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 16:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

VIS Promotion

Congratulations!
The set of images you nominated for valued image set was reviewed and has now been promoted to the Valued image set: Sony NEX-5N.

It is considered to be the most valued set of images on Commons within the scope:
Sony NEX-5N.
If you would like to nominate another image set, please do so at Valued images candidates.

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Charbonnage du Hasard 58.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 It needs a little correction of perspective and a little crop (See notes). I think that the image is a little bit tilted CCW, but I'm not sure because it can be a crop--Lmbuga 23:17, 9 August 2013 (UTC) better now ? Bourgeois.A 09:33, 10 August 2013 (UTC) Much better  Support QI for me--Lmbuga 14:36, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Puits Notre-Dame pluie.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 tilted IMO (see the pole in the background). --Myrabella 06:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC) OK ! Better now ? Bourgeois.A 10:33, 8 August 2013 (UTC) Yes, it is, OK to me. Nice bucolic and industrial picture. --Myrabella 20:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2013-Château de Belfort 15.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --JLPC 16:56, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2013-Château de Belfort 17.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support --A.Savin 17:48, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2013-Château de Belfort 11.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --JLPC 16:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2013-Fort de la Miotte 06.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support --A.Savin 08:49, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vue sur Cheratte.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Martin Falbisoner 17:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Charbonnage du Hasard 46.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Smial 23:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Galerie 780 - 2013 05.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 imo, considering the technical difficulties --Martin Falbisoner 06:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2013-Château de Belfort 18.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Jean11 08:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2013-Château de Belfort 14 - crop.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Tilted. Crop at the top is improvable. I think a tighter crop would help. --Kadellar 11:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC) Not done. --Kadellar 15:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC) Better now ? Bourgeois.A 21:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC) Ok now, thanks (you could have kept a bit more of the wall, the bad crop was only at the top, but ok this way). --Kadellar 13:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Fonçage Robert-2013 07.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 09:49, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hameau de La Houillère 14.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 08:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hameau de La Houillère 13.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, Heuschrecke 10:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Fonçage Robert-2013 09.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 Looks tilted. Heuschrecke 10:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)  Done, better now ? Bourgeois.A 13:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC) Yes, thank you! Heuschrecke 23:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2013-Château de Belfort 03.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's tilted and need perspective correction IMO --Christian Ferrer 20:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC) This is not titled, the walls are naturally inclined. Bourgeois.A 12:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC) It's tilted, I'm not talking about the walls, see notes --Christian Ferrer 15:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Better now ? Bourgeois.A 11:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Not enough IMO, regarde sur la page de l'image, j'ai téléchargé une version corrigée avec les frames grises pour que tu vois ce je pense etre correct --Christian Ferrer 16:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)  Done Mieux ? Bourgeois.A 18:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC) C'est mieux bien qu'imparfait, mais j'ai l'impression que tu as croppé la version que j'ai téléchargé et ayant participé à l'édition, je ne peut plus la promouvoir --Christian Ferrer 04:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC) J'ai failli m'en charger, mais l'avant de la voiture rouge me gêne...--Jebulon 09:41, 4 September 2013 (UTC  Done Bourgeois.A 14:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)) Merci. Pour moi, c'est bon.--Jebulon 22:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2013-Fort de la Miotte 02.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2013-Fort de la Miotte 07.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 I would say it is almost oversharpened IMO. --Slaunger 08:52, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2013-Fort de la Miotte 08.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sony 18-55 E.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}}}

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tamron 18-200 E.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}}}

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2014 - Puits Arthur - 30.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 --Cccefalon 10:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2013-Fort de la Miotte 13 - Crop.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Bgag 17:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2014 - Puits Arthur - 30 - Crop.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments OK. --Heuschrecke 19:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Demandes de suppression

Bonjour, S'il-vous-plaît, n'oubliez pas de laisser une note sur la page de l'utilisateur concerné lorsque vous faites des demandes de suppression, en suivant les instructions affichées dans le modèle. Par ailleurs, êtes-vous certain que l'utilisateur Jamy0254C n'est pas Jean-Michel Castro? Si oui, il serait quand même utile de fournir, avec le modèle de demande de suppression, un lien ou un minimum d'explications pour étayer l'accusation que l'utilisateur aurait menti sur son identité. Si non, ce pourrait être sympa de lui laisser un délai pour réagir avant de supprimer. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Nouveau modèle utilisateur

Salut.

J'ai créé un nouveau modèle utilisateur : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:User_info2

Je l'ai utilisé sur ma page utilisateur.

Cordialement. --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

@ComputerHotline: merci ! Bourgeois.A (talk) 21:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy holidays! 2015!

		* * * Happy Holidays 2015 ! * * *
		* Merry Christmas! Happy New Year! * Joyeux Noël ! Bonne année! * Frohes Weihnachten! Frohes Neues Jahr! * Счастливого Рождества! С Новым годом! --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:07, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

-> NOUVELLE PAGE DE DISCUSSION

-> NEW TALKING PAGE

File:Centrale Ronchamp XXe 06.jpg

File:Centrale Ronchamp XXe 06.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!

A.BourgeoisP (talk) 10:57, 5 July 2018 (UTC)