User talk:Eusebius/Archives/2010

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Tralleis & Cihanoğlu

Hello Eusebius! I saw your messages on the images uploaded on 23 December with OTRS pending as well as written permissions from en:Lydia and en:Mysia. Thank you for your laborious efforts. Je savais qu'on y arriverait. "Vive la France!" comme dirait un des en:Trois Fréres, j'ai oublié lequel.

At the same time as two tentatively uploaded files below which caught your attention: File:Tralles_Excavations_Aydin_Turkey.JPG & File:CihanogluMosque_EarlyExampleBaroqueStyleMosque_Aydin_Turkey.JPG, could you also delete their equivalents in English wikipedia at the links below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TralleisKaz%C4%B1lar%C4%B1.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cihano%C4%9FluCamii.jpg

A +. Cretanforever (talk) 22:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for showing up. I don't have the power to delete anything on any Wikipedia, only on Commons. I have very little knowledge of the Wikipedian equivalent of our procedures, but I'll pass the job to someone with the required knowledge and tools. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 22:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello Eusebius! Third time I am sending the author Mr. Schmitz's permission under [Ticket#2008022410004871] for the images below (

File:Akyaka_generalview_MuglaTurkey.jpg and File:NailCakirhanHouse_AkyakaMuglaTurkey_1983AghaKhanArchitectureAward.jpg), hoping someone will OTRS ticket them. I have not received an answer as yet. I am tempted to quote Talleyrand. If you want me to apply to -for example- a German user with whom it may go smoother, please be so kind to leave a message in my talk page. Regards. Pourquoi affiches-tu la photo de Tralles, by the way. It will soon be deleted. :) Cretanforever (talk) 15:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Your reply to the ticket you're quoting has been received, I confirm you that your precendent reply must have been lost. The processing of an OTRS ticket can be long (about a month), especially when involving several languages, but not that long... --Eusebius (talk) 15:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I will re-upload those Akyaka photographs which are now missing. I am also copy-pasting here -if don't judge it improper, otherwise you are free to remove it- part of our correspondance, for its relevance and although it was in French. Regards. Cretanforever (talk) 11:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

G., pour les deux ci-dessous,

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lydians.JPG

et

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mysians_in_battle_Frieze.jpg

le seul moyen de remedier vraiment au "missing evidence of permission" est de sauter dans une machine a voyager dans le temps et revenir avec une declaration ecrite des lydiens et des mysiens qui preciserait qu'il sont bien d'accord pour l'utilisation des images de leurs oeuvres sur wikipedia. Le premier vient d'une site internet ayant comme unique but la dissemination de l'information sur la Turquie (et l'Europe) historique, et l'autre d'un musee. Ce sont des oeuvres d'art et leurs auteurs sont morts depuis plus de cent ans, au même titre qu'un tableau de Pierre-Charles Jombert ou de Jean-Baptiste-Camille Corot par exemple. Je pense qu'il ne faut pas les effacer.

Je vois que des notes sont tombes sur ma page de discussion pour effacer les images de Tralleis et la mosquee. Merci d'avoir transmettre mon message.

Je voudrais telecharger

http://www.akyaka.org/pictures/cakirhan/pics_cakirhan/nail_cakirhan.jpg

pour continuer l'article biographique même sous une quelconque caution, par exemple sous "OTRS pending", bien que l'accord et la reference OTRS existent depuis presque deux ans. Nous sommes preoccupes ici parce que quelqu'un ne l'a pas inscrit dans les fichiers des images en question, alors que j'avais indique les liens.

Merci de ta comprehension,

A+

User:Cretanforever (desole pour les accents, avec le clavier que j'ai, c'est trop complique)

Pour les photographies d'antiquités : la photographie d'objet en 3D, même si c'est une oeuvre d'art dans le domaine public, génère un nouveau copyright ou droit d'auteur. Il faut donc une autorisation formelle du photographe ou des ayants-droits. Je ne pense pas avoir taggé ces photographies au hasard.

Pour le fichier d'akyaka : il n'y a jamais eu d'autorisation valable pour ce site. Ne publiez pas de fichiers sous une licence libre sans en avoir le droit, vous connaissez les règles je crois. N'inventez pas vos propres règles simplement parce qu'elles vous arrangent, et signez vos messages s'il-vous-plaît. --Eusebius (talk) 08:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Labrys.jpg

I am pasting a copy of the axe image to decorate the discussion since that seems to have become fashionable (see: en:Talk:İzmir)

Dans l'espoir d'avoir une correspondance calme sans faire des allusions hypothétiques a ce qui m'arrange ou pas, hello again Eusebius! I am more of an observer than an arrangement maker. One of my bases in uploading Lydia and Mysia photographs was this image (File: Labrys.jpg) uploaded under PD Art because, for good reason, the copyright had expired. I am not sure if anyone can tell by now if there was a written permission from any holder of any copyright generated by the fact of having taken a photograph of the object, since the University of Texas link given is dead.

I have nominated this picture for deletion as well because, I have told you, the {{PD-Art}} reasoning doesn't apply to three-dimensional works. The whole related policy is available here, but the 2D condition is repeated in the template itself... FYI, the "decoration" of my talk page is not a matter of fashion, I add the thumbnails because they're useful to me. Many users come on my talk page to discuss issues and I need to identify quickly the subject of the discussion. --Eusebius (talk) 12:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

For T. Schmitz's Akyaka photographs, I saw that a note mentioning the OTRS number had been inserted in the two remaining images, we are waiting for a second confirmation from the author/copyright holder and that's fine. You may have received a response by now, since the end of year holidays are behind us. In the meantime, why not delete all Akyaka photographs since there had never been a valid authorization for the whole akyaka.org site? Cretanforever (talk) 11:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

They will be deleted after a while if no reply comes. Before that you'll have the opportunity to contact him again, I'll notify you. --Eusebius (talk) 12:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

For Akyaka photographs, it's wound up. The two remaining ones are OTRS ticketed now and I will re-upload the rest on the same basis.

Only because you opened several tickets at the same time, trying to find which volunteer would be the easiest to convince. This is why I have reassigned the ticket to somebody else, this is why I am not going to process any other ticket from you. This is something I can expect from a child (asking mom when dad says no), but for an adult I consider that dishonesty. I am not willing to help you anymore, so please don't contact me, I won't answer. I suggest you take much care with your uploads. --Eusebius (talk) 13:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

If PD-Art is defined as a "photograph taken by somebody else to assert where the photograph can have no independent copyright as it is simply a faithful reproduction of an old, public domain, two-dimensional work of art", this holds true for File:Tile Peacock KubadabadPalace Beysehir Turkey.jpg as well as the ones on Lydians & Mysians that are now deleted. I should be entitled to re-upload those as well. The only artistic choices available were those I could use while cropping the pictures. Is me boycotting for upload the self-made image of a French-built 19th century quarantine hospital in en:Urla, Izmir a convincing argument? Cretanforever (talk) 12:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

File:George_heery.jpg

Hey there! The photograph of George Heery (file:George_heery.jpg) was provided to me from the subject's family business archives, which I've been using for research on the article on the subject. The image was resident in digital format from a collection of compact discs file backups. I've been told that the photograph dates from 1989 and was taken by one of his employees, but they have no documentation to cite the name of the individual who shot the photograph. I would appreciate your help in the process for using this photo, hoping that they control the image and can sign off on this for me. Thanks for your help!-- Drewprops (talk) 06:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Normally, the copyright holder of this picture would be the photographer or his heirs, and we should seek a permission from them. However, here I guess we can consider that the photograph was taken on the behalf of the subject. In the US, an automatic copyright transfer would be recognized and I think it is safe to work on this basis. Therefore, the copyright holders are now all the heirs of George Heery, and it is from them that we should seek permission. It is probably easier, since you've been in contact with them. Would you care to have them agree on a (free) license and send us statements in this form to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org? --Eusebius (talk) 08:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Super! I will contact them this afternoon for consent and let them know how to respond! I'm amused that I'm learning to contribute to Wikipedia, as the most I've ever done was grant consent to use one of my photographs of a cinematographer I worked with in the 1990s. Drewprops (talk) 18:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand that Mr. Heery responded via email sometime during the last week. Is there anything that I, as a contributor, should do at this point or is this now an administrative procedure? Bonne Année!--Drewprops (talk) 15:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me. The process will now takes place between Mr Heery and an OTRS volunteer (not necessarily me), you don't have anything more to do. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 16:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Si o se pol at 5 AM-Isfahan.JPG

Hi dear Eusebius, Merry Christmas! hope u remember me... one of my friends on fa.wiki has requested me to do sth here to make the picture Featured, Quality or Valued. Is there any chance? Amirreza (talk) 20:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry, but I begin with tagging the picture as missing a permission, please do what you can to clarify the authorship situation (who is the photographer? Who is the sculptor? We need their permission). About your question: this is only my personal opinion, and sorry but I'm very direct. I'd say don't even try Featured. I think it wouldn't pass the requirements for Quality, at least I wouldn't support it. About valued images, the core question is, is the statue (not the bridge) famous enough to warrant a Wikipedia article on its own, for instance? Another criterion is that the image should be geocoded, but the scope issue (along with the copyright one) is the main problem here I think. --Eusebius (talk) 20:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Dino Castelbou

Hi Eusebius, can you review this users contributions? I suspect that he is uploading some out of scope private art and that he is creating a mini-universe of his own opinions in his user subpages. The user is indefblocked on Wikipedia, I dont want him blocked but I also dont want Commons become a mess of such private art and personal articles. Thanks in advance, --Martin H. (talk) 20:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Out of scope private art... My favourite kind! I'll have a look and keep an eye on him. --Eusebius (talk) 21:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I have nominated most of his uploads for deletions, but I have left his subpages untouched, mostly because they're only 2 of them. They're obviously out of scope, but the extent is somewhat limited, he's not (for now) creating a whole website under his user namespace. Speedy deletion, at least, is out of question here, for now. I'll leave a note to him about the subpages. I keep him on my watchlist anyway. --Eusebius (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio File:Gliese.JPG ?

Bonjour,

Suite à ce message sur ma PdD : de mémoire, cette image avait été postée par son auteur Hervé Piraud, alias Exobank (talk · contribs). Si son identité est mise en doute, il faudrait effacer tous ses uploads, pas seulement celui-ci. Mais peut-être que la première chose à faire serait de lui demander de prouver son identité ? Je n'ai guère de doutes à ce sujet considérant son historique d'uploads et les énormes watermarks que je m'étais employé d'enlever... — Xavier, 01:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

D'accord, je vais regarder ça de plus près, merci du message. --Eusebius (talk) 08:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Merci pour lui. À l'avenir, lorsqu'un fichier pose problème, pouvez-vous prévenir tous ses uploaders, et pas seulement le dernier ? Je viens de m'apercevoir qu'Exobank n'avait pas été notifié que File:Gliese.JPG et File:Trou_noir.JPG posaient problème et j'ai recopié les warnings afférents sur sa PdD. A+ — Xavier, 19:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Désolé mais les messages sur les pages de discussion sont automatiques et ce serait vraiment fastidieux de les recopier à la main (j'en mets un certain nombre par jour...). Comme vous pouvez le voir sur les pages des images que vous avez pointées, il y a un ticket OTRS en cours et les images ne risquent pas (plus) de suppression dans l'immédiat (l'auteur a été contacté directement par mail, le compte Exobank étant inactif depuis un moment). --Eusebius (talk) 19:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: File source is not properly indicated: File:Gratia-a-son-chevalet.JPG

File isn't my original upload - I just cropped the border. -- Editor at Large • talk 21:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I know, automatic message. I'll forward to the uploader. --Eusebius (talk) 16:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

HersfoldOTRSBot

It's been a few weeks now - is it safe to run the bot again? Hersfold ^(talk/work) 23:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Safer, yes! Thank you. --Eusebius (talk) 16:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello Eusebius

The documents in the link: [1] are the archives of my school Ipsoc in Kortrijk. They are also visible sinds 10 years in my book "Nieuwe tijden, nieuwe noden, nieuwe oplossingen" written and copyrighted by myself, Benedict Wydooghe, publiched bij www.katho.be/ipsoc in the year 2000, printed by Lannoo.

I hope this will do... Thanks. Benedict.wydooghe (talk) 22:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. It is unclear to me which picture you are referring to. Anyway, having used a document in one of your publications does not grant you copyright over it, and we need a permission from the copyright holders (or a legal reason to consider the document in the public domain). --Eusebius (talk) 22:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, I'am referring to all pictures in the hyperlink. The copyrightholder is "the school" (www.katho.be/ipsoc). Do i ask the direction? And, in what form do i write the permission? Benedict.wydooghe (talk) 22:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please have an official from the school send us an e-mail, if they're the copyright holders. The standard permission statement can be found here (there is both a French and a Dutch version), and they should send it to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Please tell me when an e-mail has been sent, in order to prevent the files from being deleted. --Eusebius (talk) 22:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

George Miok

Hi! Today I sent a permission letter from the creator of this photo File:George Miok.jpg, I hope, you got it. It's important to me, this man has recently died. --Eino81 (talk) 23:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I don't have time to process it myself now, but the e-mail has been received. --Eusebius (talk) 06:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Multiple Deletions

Hello, je pense que vous comprenez le français. J'ai été étonné par vos demandes de suppression multiples, en effet, ces images datent de plus de 70 ans (je vous l'accorde sauf celle de Giono). Quant à l'auteur je ne peux savoir à chaque fois qui est-ce, les crédits ne les précisent pas. A partir du moment où cette donnée manque je considère que l'auteur est d'accord ou est décèdé puisque l'auteur du livre lui-même n'a pas eu à le demander. j'espère que vous comprenez. Si ces images sont supprimées, je ne vois pas en quoi je dois continuer de participer à Commons. J'ai déjà évoqué la question avec d'autres contributeurs et certains ont convenu de prendre des risques vis à vis de ce genre de cas, je pense que seule la date de la photographie compte, en l'absence d'autres informations, cordialement, --prosopee (talk) 15:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Bonjour. Je sais que ces cas sont frustrants et difficiles lorsqu'on contribue en important des photographies "historiques" de grand intérêt, et encore plus lorsqu'on y a passé du temps. L'essentiel du travail des administrateurs sur Commons consiste à vérifier que les lois sur le droit d'auteur (ou le copyright) sont respectés. Et la loi française dit bien que le délai de 70 ans commence à courir au premier janvier de l'année qui suit le décès du dernier auteur d'une oeuvre. On ne prend la date de publication comme référence que pour les oeuvres "pseudonymes, anonymes ou collectives" (article L123-3 du Code de la Propriété Intellectuelle), et ce uniquement lorsque les auteurs ne se sont pas identifiés par la suite. Pour accepter une licence du genre {{Anonymous-EU}}, il faut théoriquement au moins apporter la preuve (ou un indice raisonnable) que la première publication a été anonyme, ce qui est relativement rare, et notamment pour une photographie. Lorsqu'un contributeur importe des dizaines de photographies en invoquant ce cas, c'est juste que la paternité des oeuvres n'a pas été suffisamment recherchée (peut-être parce que l'éditeur de l'ouvrage dans lequel on les a trouvées ne s'est pas fatigué non plus), ce qui n'ouvre pas vraiment droit à l'utilisation de ce type de licence. Ceci ne constitue pas un reproche de ne pas avoir effectué davantage de recherches (c'est particulièrement difficile), juste une affirmation que ces fichiers ne devraient pas être publiés par Commons.

Pour information, même lorsqu'on ne connaît pas l'auteur, on considère actuellement que les oeuvres publiées avant 1900 environ sont raisonnablement dans le domaine public en raison de leur âge, car il est probable que leur auteur soit décédé avant 1939 (2010 - 70 ans - fraction d'année). Au-delà, leur statut est contesté si l'on n'a pas d'informations sur la date de décès de l'auteur.

Nous passons et passerons toujours pour des mauvais coucheurs auprès des contributeurs qui ont besoin de ces contenus pour travailler... Merci par avance de votre compréhension. --Eusebius (talk) 16:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Je comprends bien et ne vous mets pas en cause, un administrateur est là pour surveiller. Vous avez aussi raison pour la "loi de de 1900" comme je la surnomme et qui consiste à n'importer que les oeuvres d'avant cette année. Si l'auteur ne prend pas de dispositions pour faire valloir ses droits, comment le prévenir et lui demander son autorisation; ce système ne permet pas de constituer une banque de media comem Commons ambitionne de le devenir, ou alors dans 100 ans. J'ajoute que le Code de la Propriété Intellectuelle reconnait des exceptions au droit d'auteur, dans le cas où les images sont à l'usage familial comme c'est le cas des portraits photographiques bien souvent, mais là encore je n'ai pas de preuve. Bref je pense (mais je n'invoque pas cette remarques pour défendre mes images) que la communauté a tout intérêt à "prendre des risques" sur ces cas d'oeuvres anonymes et réutilisées maintes fois en pariant que l'auteur est mort ou n'a plus moyen de prouver (lui aussi) son droit. Je sais que cela ne sert à rien de me défendre, les règles étan claires, mais je ne vois pas de raisons de contribuer à Commons s'il faut attendre 100 ans pour importer des sujets d'importance. merci de vos éclaircissements et pour m'avoir répondu, cordialement, --prosopee (talk) 16:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Pouvez vous me laisser un peu de temps je vais tâcher de rechercher la paternité de quelques-unes? merci... --prosopee (talk) 17:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Oui, il y a bien des exceptions au droit d'auteur, en fait des cas particuliers, dépendant de l'usage que l'on fait des oeuvres, dans lesquels les ayants-droits ne peuvent pas empêcher la divulgation. Seulement l'objectif de Commons est la constitution d'une base de contenus libres de droits pour tout le monde et pour tous usages, ce qui interdit de se reposer sur ces exceptions. Par contre, les Wikipédias locales le font, ce sont leurs politiques de "fair use", qui font que par exemple on peut uploader des logos sur fr.WP.
Pas de problème pour attendre avant la suppression, il n'y a pas de procédure "rapide" engagée, et il est possible que mes demandes de suppression fassent débat. J'attendrai également avant de regarder vos uploads plus anciens (de toute manière, j'ai pas le temps...). Si vous pouvez retrouver certains des bouquins que vous avez utilisés, en trouver un ou deux qui ont des crédits photographiques potables, ça pourra déjà en sauver quelques-uns... --Eusebius (talk) 18:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok pour le "répit" mais ahma ça n'ira pas loin. Pour les anciennes, supprimez tout. J'aurais du comprendre avant que Commons était sans avenir (proche), --prosopee (talk) 18:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Dubigeon

Bonjour, Bon, c'est toujours un peu laborieux cet labélisation de photo Dubidgeon, mais on y viendra surement à bout ;) Merci encore pour l'aide apportée. Je dois dire que je ne suis pas fan de File:Chantiers Dubigeon - Prairie au Duc.jpg Idéalement je crois que le meilleur point de vue serai de la butte ste Anne en vue plongeante vers la prairie des Ducs. Mais perso, je n'ai pas prévu de faire un safari photo sur Nantes avant le retour des beaux jours. J'ai proposé sur la PdD de vote de faire une carte de localisation des sites. Je pense que celle-ci pourrait servir de lien entre les photos, donc le set serait réellement pertinent et complet. Cordialement Cyril5555 (talk) 23:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Salut. Comme j'ai dit, je ne pense pas non plus que mon pano soit vraiment utile. Par contre je pense que la butte Sainte-Anne est un peu loin, je pense que le meilleur endroit, c'est tout en haut du Maillé-Brézé ! Mais je ne suis plus sur Nantes. À suivre. --Eusebius (talk) 06:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

La dent!

File:Carcharodontosaurus saharicus Dent.jpg

Dans l’absolu tu as raison. Mais il va être difficile de montrer des photos de paléontologie, car pour de nombreuses espèces nous n’avons que des fragments. Dans le cas précis nous avons de nombreuses dents (toutes les même) et d’autre fragment mais le crâne que nous avons en photo sur http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcharodontosaurus est une reconstitution. Il est aussi déraisonnable de faire une sous catégorie « dent » pour chacune des espèces fossiles. Je n’étais pas mécontent de cette photo car elle montre la particularité de des dents de cette espèce qui est très typique : le crénelage et surtout le profil qui la différencie au premier coup d’œil des autres membres de la famille. Enfin et surtout j’ai un but c’est de valoriser dans notre encyclopédie les photos de paléontologie qui montrent une réalité plus que des dessins de reconstitution qui relèvent de la plus pure spéculation.

Quel est ton conseil --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Salut. Je vois bien ta position et ton problème, et je ne nie pas la qualité de la photo ni son intérêt. Mais tu admettras qu'elle ne peut pas illustrer l'animal dans son ensemble (c'est tout ce que je dis !). Pour cela, la meilleure option serait sans doute une des illustrations que nous avons, par exemple celle-là, à condition qu'elle ne soit pas scientifiquement contestée bien sûr. Pour la dent, je la vois mal en VI : il faudrait pour cela que la bestiole ait une dentition vraiment particulière, au point de justifier un bon paragraphe d'article Wikipédia à elle toute seule. Et en-dehors du fait que c'est la caractéristique qui a été choisie pour nommer l'animal, il ne me semble pas évident que sa dentition soit fondamentalement différente de celle des autres grands carnivores du Crétacé (mais bien sûr je n'y connais pas grand-chose dans le domaine). Du coup, j'ai peur de n'avoir pas vraiment de conseil à te donner... --Eusebius (talk) 12:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Je suis contant de cet échange car il montre combien le problème est délicat. Pour toi l’image est la référence. Or cette image est une pure fantaisie, il y un débat sur la taille de l’espèce qui est largement surestimé, et les rangée de spicules sur le dos de l’animal sont une pure invention. Il est glabre alors qu’il a toutes les chances de porter des plumes au moins en partie, une autre image du scope le montre dans cette option.

La dent elle est très typique, sa taille, sa dissymétrie de face et de profil, mais aussi son étroitesse de profil font quelle est facile à reconnaître (ce n’est pas le cas de beaucoup d’espèce).

En fait ce qui me paraitrait utile c’est de laisse une « vue d’artiste » pour l’infobox car nous avons une vocation de vulgarisation mais de mettre au moins dans l’article des photos faisant références et labélisé comme telle. C’est pour cela que je viens chercher ce label VA et pas QI.

Comme tu le vois cela dépasse bien le cadre de cette photo en particulier, c’est celui des photos futures de paléontologie. Voilà le problème et pour être franc je suis incapable d'expliquer çà en anglais et je compte un peu sur toi pour m'aider --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Ben je vais pas t'aider beaucoup, je n'ai pas d'argument pour défendre cette photo. Tout ce que tu dis sur l'illustration, c'est ce que je voulais dire par "à condition qu'elle ne soit pas scientifiquement contestée". Si elle fait débat à ce point, ça peut difficilement être une VI (ceci dit en paléontologie j'imagine que beaucoup d'illustrations font débat, mais je me demande si on n'a pas déjà promu une vue d'artiste de dinosaure, probablement une illustration de User:LadyofHats). Mais ça ne rend pas la dent illustrative de l'animal dans son ensemble. On se heurte à un problème frustrant du projet VI : pour certains scopes, on ne peut pas promouvoir une VI. Ici, c'est parce que l'on a (probablement) pas d'image qui illustre correctement le domaine (critère 3). D'ailleurs je trouve ça curieux que tu choisisses VI plutôt que QI. D'abord, ce n'est pas du tout incompatible (VI, QI et FP n'ont pas les mêmes objectifs), ensuite lorsqu'il y a un problème de "scope", typiquement ici pour une image qui n'illustre qu'un détail, un statut QI est plus indiqué. Après, il faut voir la qualité technique de l'image, évidemment. Si tu la propose en QI, je ne voterai pas, d'abord à cause de cette conversation (je veux pouvoir voter de manière indépendante), ensuite parce que je la trouve tout juste limite par rapport aux critères QI.

Pour ce qui est du choix des images dans l'infobox des articles, on ne décide de rien sur Commons, c'est de la responsabilité éditoriale des contributeurs Wikipédia. On fait une proposition, c'est tout. Parfois c'est adapté pour un format infobox, parfois non (comme le panorama sur ma page d'utilisateur). --Eusebius (talk) 18:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

J'ai compris la partie principale de votre discussion.

Je suis prêt à soutenir cette nomination.

Essayez changer le domaine |scope=[[Carcharodontosaurus]], tooth

C'est la situation rare et le domaine étroit est bon. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Re Qi

This one is commented on here too :) Hoping the fr has somewhat warmer weather than here tho the photo opps are good! Regards--Herby ^{talk thyme} 19:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Not too cold here (not below -10°C by night I'd say), but about 30cm of snow everywhere and no decent light so far. I didn't take any pictures, I'm just glad I could make it back home after work... And I'm damn glad I don't have a car. About the picture, I don't have anything to say, you'd say it far better. But please do ping me if the version I have opposed is updated and I don't seem to react (I don't watch the QIC list constantly). --Eusebius (talk) 19:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

-7 last night at my home :) Some panoramas taken today and will upload some material as soon as I can.

As to the image I'd prefer to see the people who upload them fix their own if they wish to get them to QI - FP is different :). Regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 19:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Template error

Hi, Eusebius!
Template:VIC-graph-closed has error (not work after 1000 promotions).
With best regards, --George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I'm not sure I can fix it myself, but I'll take care of that. --Eusebius (talk) 09:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Done --Eusebius (talk) 09:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Flag of Theatre

--Струјајое (talk) 23:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC) To permissions-commonswikimedia.org I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of WORK [File:Flag of Knjaževsko-srpski teatar.jpg]. I agree to publish that work under the free license [from {{GFDL}}]. I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product, and to modify it according to their needs, as long as they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me. I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the work may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. Author: Slobodan Stetic, professor for Graphic design of the FILUM in City of Kragujevac. http://www.filum.kg.ac.yu fulum@kg.ac.yu See also http://www.joakimvujic.com/download_uk.php

Hi. I is pointless to display the full text on a user page (the copyright holder must send it directly to OTRS). I update the image page. --Eusebius (talk) 07:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

La dent! (saison II)

Merci Georges pour ton soutiens, Merci à Eusebius de m’avoir écouté. Je vais retirer cette photo. Elle a eu le mérite d’attirer l’attention sur les problèmes que nous pouvons avoir pour juger des sujets présentés. Beaucoup d’entre nous ne font pas la différence en paléontologie entre: un dessin d’artiste, un moulage(le crâne du scope est un moulage), une reconstitution, et un fossile véritable. J’ai refais une photo de meilleures qualité pour QI. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

1) Décidément tu te braques bien vite je trouve. 2) Les crânes retrouvés au Niger et au Maroc sont des moulages ? --Eusebius (talk) 15:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Si tu rouvres ta nomination, je retire mon opposition, j'ai besoin d'y réfléchir. --Eusebius (talk) 17:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Il a bien une ligne et une ombre... il à des jours comme çà. J'ai corrigé. Merci de ta vigilence.
Non je ne me suis pas fâché, au contraire ton idée sur le fond est vrai. Je n'ai pas trouvé comment pondérer le problème. J'ai commencé à y réfléchir. Je ne vais pas me presser car la minéralogie est loin d'être finie et en paléontologie le nombre de photo est grand... mais vraiment grand.
Le moulage en question m'est connu il est le moulage d'un composite (plusieurs os de différents individus), c'est au demeurant un beau moulage. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

(indent reset) Je voulais juste dire que je trouvais que tu avais fermé la nomination rapidement. Sur mon revirement, mon questionnement actuel, c'est que si une dent ne peut pas illustrer convenablement l'animal, cette dent est peut-être une illustration convenable du type de fragments fossiles que l'on récupère pour cette espèce, d'autant que c'est une partie caractéristique (même si à mon sens ça ne justifierait pas un subscope juste sur la dent). Sur le moulage il y a un quiproquo, je ne sais pas de quoi tu parles. Sinon et tu fais bien de m'y faire penser, je te remercie pour tes nominations en minéralogie. Il y a quelques mois, nous avons passé (j'ai passé, notamment) beaucoup de temps à construire la classification des VIs (Commons:Valued images by topic). Et au sortir de cette classification, il ressortait que quelques catégories attendaient d'être remplies. Je me suis dit que comme c'était vide, j'allais chercher quelques minéraux et éléments, en me disant que ça ne devait pas être bien dur à trouver dans les collections de Commons. Eh ben quand il n'y a que des photos médiocres pour un minéral dont on ignore à peu près tout, c'est finalement pas facile, alors j'ai laissé tomber. Bref, merci pour les photos et pour les nominations VI. --Eusebius (talk) 20:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Penses-tu que je puisse mettre la nouvelle version (corrigée) de la dent en VI, ou j’attends ?
Je pense que tu peux. Je n'avais pas vu que tu avais téléchargé la nouvelle version comme une image différente. --Eusebius (talk) 10:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Mes remarques sur le crâne font références à celui du scope.
Je ne comprends toujours pas... --Eusebius (talk) 10:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Tant que je te tiens pouquoi Carcharodontosaurus est en lien bleu et si je mets Fossil Carcharodontosaurus le lien est rouge ? Il y pourtant deux catégories ? --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Parce que si tu fais un lien [[comme ça]], c'est un lien vers une galerie, pas vers une catégorie. Vers une catégorie, c'est [[:Category:comme ça|comme ça]]. Du coup je n'avais pas vu qu'il y avait une catégorie pour "Fossil Carcharodontosaurus". Est-ce que c'est bien le titre à utiliser pour la catégorie ? "Carcharodontosaurus fossiles" plutôt que "Fossiles de Carcharodontosaurus" ? Du coup je découvre effectivement une image de crâne, et je déduis de tes remarques que c'est un moulage, mais je n'avais jamais parlé de cette image, puisque je ne la connaissais pas ! Du coup, effectivement, se pose la question, est-ce que la photo du moulage peut être un bon candidat (étant donné que l'intérêt des candidats VI réside dans l'apparence, les distinctions visuelles, etc.) ? --Eusebius (talk) 10:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Nous avons appris pas mal de chose grâce à cette dent. Je vais la laisser en paix , et revenir à des sujets minéralogiques plus consensuels. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Canon's CA correction

Hi, regarding the CA discussion on QIC page, I have been really happy with the CA correction feature of Canon's Digital Photo Professional. At least my kit lens EF-S 18-55 generates quite a lot of CA. However, it is easy to correct with Digital Photo Professional: open the raw file, Ctrl-T, choose NR/Lens(/ALO)-tab, "Tune..." and then you just check on the Chromatic aberration -feature. The default strength (100) works IMO well and I haven't seen a need to tweak it manually. The software recognizes the (Canon) lens you are using and based on that applies the correct amount of CA compensation.

Here's an example what it actually does:

Uncorrected CA: [2].

Corrected CA: [3].

Regarding the noise reduction, I usually use 2 for Luminance and 1 for Chrominance with ISO 100 in Digital Photo Professional, but to be honest with you, I haven't really compared the results with camera's own algorithms. Do you remmeber with what ISO settings you have found camera's algorithms been better?

I'm here assuming you are using Windows, I doubt Canon's DPP is available for other OSes. :-(

Hopefully, this was of some help. And thanks for your great images!

BR, --MattiPaavola (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your valuable comments. I have DPP and I work on Windows, with Photoshop, mostly (and with the EF-S 18-55, among others). I haven't really tried the CA feature of DPP, but I will. Besides, I have very slight issues with seeing colours, so I don't always see CA as a problem in my pictures.

Regarding noise correction: I don't often start from the raw file, the jpeg usually suits me (but I'm probably not demanding enough). Very often, when I go to DPP, it's because exposure conditions were difficult, I had to underexpose a bit and I need to readjust. In such conditions, I always find that the raw file is of course more detailed than the jpeg, but too noisy for me to correct it. I haven't performed systematic tests (so I'm unable to answer your question), but I don't remember having ever performed a noise correction better than the Digic processor of the camera. But I'm not very good at postprocessing. Pictures like this one are exceptions, for which I agreed to go with the noise of the sensor (+ non-DPP software denoising + slight downsampling) in order to obtain better details (the downsampled version still shows better details than the jpeg given by the camera).

Do you use only DPP, or other software as well? --Eusebius (talk) 17:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Yes, I'm using DPP for everything except for rotation. For some strange reason DPP doesn't support rotation and many times I didn't manage to keep the camera on level and need to correct the rotation afterwards. So far I've been using GIMP for rotation correction (after first adjusting the levels, CA etc in DPP)., but one bad thing with it is that it looses the EXIF information from the file. There are probably ways to keep the EXIF info even with GIMP, but I really haven't investigated that issue.

BR, --MattiPaavola (talk) 18:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

CA correction works pretty well indeed, I certainly will be more careful about that now that I know that DPP works better than Photoshop on the issue... I also see, when working from the raw, some kind of aliasing that I blur out by keeping DPP denoising to 1 (at leas it works for this picture). Thanks a lot for the new tips. --Eusebius (talk) 22:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Moondragons.jpg

File:Moondragons.jpg

I just went back to the site that I grabbed the image from, and they specifically ask to contact them for licensing. I did no such thing, thus I'm confident we do not have permission to use the file. Please see my post on the deletion discussion for more detail. Honestly, I uploaded the file, and I'm saying there is no reason whatsoever to keep it, and doing so violates copyright. Throwaway85 (talk) 02:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's see how it goes. --Eusebius (talk) 06:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Alright, fair enough. I understand it's not exactly a priority. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

It's just that I can't do anything to speed up the process. You have given the information you had, I have given my opinion, other people have... An admin (not me) must close the DR after at least 7 days. --Eusebius (talk) 08:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there no speedy delete for copyrighted media? Throwaway85 (talk) 14:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

For "obvious copyright violations". --Eusebius (talk) 14:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Wexeb

Will do. -- Drini

Thanks. --Eusebius (talk) 13:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Ad polish Senate pictures

Hey, I saw your tags in files that I've uploaded here from plwiki. So these are files from the polish Senate website, where they are usually not tagged with author name or anything else (see the template discussion for more details). Do you think that they can be problematic? Most of them are anyway already uploaded on Commons, around 120 stayed on plwiki and I thought about moving them here. Masur (talk) 14:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

For me, in this case, as long as they can be sourced back to the website who gave us a permission, that's ok. The license template itself doesn't look so orthodox though (why is there no OTRS ticket for this permission??), but I really don't want to go seriously into this. Thanks for the sourcing work. --Eusebius (talk) 14:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, lack of OTRS is a problem. I'll ask the mail receipent does he still have this email if not, we can think later about it. You know, it's still from "wild times" before OTRS perms really. Masur (talk) 14:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

That's what I thought. --Eusebius (talk) 15:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Magisters.jpg

Sorry, it is my mistake (only my first steps in wiki commons)), its not free image. Please delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orest.st (talk • contribs) 15:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC) (UTC)

OK, done. Don't hesitate to ask me if you need help or have questions with the rules or procedures. --Eusebius (talk) 16:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Problematic images

¿Qué problema hay con mis imágenes? Las tomé de apuntes de una asignatura de la titulación de Ingeniero Industrial de la Universidad de Sevilla. Esi.us2 (talk) 11:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)Esi.us2 (talk) 12:48 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. From what I see, it is pretty obvious that you are not the creator of these images. For some of them, the original is even the contribution of another user on Commons. You cannot pretend that you are the author when you are not.

If, in spite of my evaluation and/or of the obvious evidence, you are the author, please provide the original file instead of low-sized derivatives that can be found on the internet.

La traducción automática: Hola. Por lo que veo, es bastante obvio que usted no es el creador de estas imágenes. Para algunos de ellos, el original es aún la contribución de otro usuario de los Comunes. No se puede pretender que usted es el autor cuando no lo son.

Si, a pesar de mi evaluación y / o de las pruebas evidentes, usted es el autor, por favor complete el archivo original en lugar de bajo tamaño de los derivados que se pueden encontrar en Internet. --Eusebius (talk) 11:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Nokia 5530

Thank you for File:Nokia 5530 left side.jpg. Please, remove marks from here too:

--Yakiv Gluck (talk) 14:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have time! --Eusebius (talk) 15:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Belgian banknotes

Hi Eusebius. I don't understand what you say... what ticket you talk about? I only have copied literaly the letter I receaved from the National Bank of Belgium asking for information about copyrights on Belgian banknotes. This morning I sent a letter for the Royal Mint, because the Bank has never issued coins and they don't own the copyrights. Best regards--Manu (talk) 10:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I have told you that scores of times: you cannot register permissions on behalf of Wikipedia/Commons/The foundation by yourself. If a permission is not validated by an OTRS agent, it cannot be relied upon on Commons. Why can't you? Well for instance, the text you have put in Commons:Currency is something the Foundation cannot accept as a permission. OTRS volunteers know what kind of permission can or cannot be accepted and are trusted by the foundation in the way they make this evaluation. Always include permissions-commons@wikimedia.org in your requests for permissions, for they, not you, must be the recipient: they will decide if the permission is ok or if they need further information from the copyright holders.

By all means, stop claiming that a permission exists on the basis of communications you have received. A specific permission exists only when an OTRS volunteer publishes a ticket number, in a given context, or when public domain or free license release can be publicly checked by anyone. --Eusebius (talk) 10:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, thank you. I didn't know what was a ticket. Thanks anyway--Manu (talk) 16:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Pictures of Margret Hofheinz-Döring

Sorry, I thought, this possibility is ok. I have the permission {{PermissionOTRS|id=2008052410011241}} and will make it correctly in the next hours --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Galbrima (talk • contribs) 13:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC) (UTC)

Hi. I don't speak German so I'm unable to check whether this permission ticket applies to this picture. Please verify that yourself, and put the ticket in the permission field of the image. When it is done I'll remove the problem tag. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 14:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Merci. Margret Hofheinz-Döring (1910-1994) était ma mère et je suis la seul fille. J´ai tous les droits. De temps en temps j´ai des problèmes avec la technique. Je vais essayer de corriger mes fautes et aussi d´écrire un peu plus en francais. --Galbrima (talk) 15:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Thummer.jpg

Hello, Eusebius.

Recently you nominate File:Thummer.jpg as copyright violation, but original uploader, en:User:JimPlamondon, claims he is license holder of the photograph.

original upload log (00:01, 29 September 2009 UTC): “I created this work entirely by myself.”
Jim Plamondon and Thummer keyboard, Thumtronics Ltd.

In such case, you can ask license holder for COM:OTRS permission. Why don't you ? --Shoulder-synth (talk) 23:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't because I didn't see any obvious link between the uploader and the websites on which instances of the picture could be found. But if you believe he's the copyright holder and he can provide the original and a permission, I'll follow your advice, restore and ask for permission. It would be very kind if you could forward the request to his home wiki, though. --Eusebius (talk) 23:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your kindly advice ! I've sent request for COM:OTRS permission mail to original uploader (en:User:JimPlamondon) and license holder ([4]). --Shoulder-synth (talk) 00:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Question

Bonjour , J’ai vu ton nom et je me suis laissé séduire par le pont suspendu, ceci-dis c’est pas pour çà que je t’appelle mais pour te demander comment un auteur peut demander la suppression d’une image (en l’occurrence pour faire éliminer des versions de la même photo chalcantite, la dent etc…) Je voulais également savoir ce qu’il faillait cocher comme licence mais il m’a suffit de regarder ce que tu mettais. Merci de ta réponse. Bien amicalement --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Je suis pas sûr d'avoir tout compris :-) Si tu veux faire supprimer une version moins bonne d'une photo, tu peux utiliser le lien "nominate for deletion" dans les menus de gauche, en disant qu'il existe une meilleure version (et en donnant le lien). Si la photo à supprimer n'est pas utilisée, ça devrait passer sans problème. Sinon, fais-moi signe. Merci pour la review QI ! Je pensais que tu parlais d'un autre pont suspendu. --Eusebius (talk) 09:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Jack_Fruit.JPG

I've forward the copyright holder's email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org on 12/23/09.--Bellayet (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I update image page. --Eusebius (talk) 17:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Saarlouiser_Neger_Bier_Etikett.jpg

ok if im the owner and the photograph what should i wrote in the source area.... donnerbräu closed in 1978?!? the brewery that sold that bottle to my father??? the picture is from an object i OWN and its made by myself... i didnt understand your problem. please explain it... --Okami-san (talk) 16:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. The core of the problem is: when you take a photograph of something that is not free of right, you cannot release it under a free license (i.e. you cannot upload it here) without a formal permission of the creator (here, Donnerbräu). Being the owner of the object doesn't make you the copyright holder, it is a general principle that you must understand. Here we need a permission from Donnerbräu, and since they don't exist anymore, from the organization or the person who inherited Donnerbräu's copyright. There is always somebody, even though they're usually hard to find. I'm afraid it makes this case quite complex.

If you need more detailed explanations or if you don't fully understand mine, maybe you want help from an admin speaking your language? --Eusebius (talk) 17:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Ramparts and city walls

Bonjour Eusebius. J'ai laissé un message sur la PdD de Foroa, concernant "Ramparts" and "City walls", car je suis perdu. En français, on n'a qu'un mot: "rempart", qui correspond le plus souvent à "city walls". Le mot anglais "ramparts" me semble spécifique et ne doit peut-être pas convenir à la plupart des Category:Ramparts in France. Peut-être cette dernière catégorie ne devrait pas exister du tout. Cordialement, Jack ma (talk) 17:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Peut-être, honnêtement je ne sais pas, je ne maîtrise pas ces subtilités de vocabulaire (si j'ai fait une modif dans un sens ou dans un autre, c'est que je n'ai pas vu qu'il y avait les deux, et que je ne me suis pas posé la question). Mon dico me dit que "rampart" veut bien dire "rempart", je n'en sais pas plus. Peut-être que "city walls" est plus spécifique parce que ça fait référence à une ville, alors que "rampart" peut s'appliquer à un château ? Peut-être que Foroa aura un avis sur la question. --Eusebius (talk) 17:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Merci. C'est pour ça que cela me semble souhaitable et évident que ces 2 catégories ne forment qu'une seule (ce ne serait pas la première fois

). Cdlt, Jack ma (talk) 07:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

École de musique du Havre

File:Ecole de musique du Havre.jpg

Bonjour.

Comme je ne connais pas les raisons de la proposition de suppression, il m'est difficile d'y répondre vraiment. Je peux dire en tous cas que ma photo reproduit un petit détail décoratif d'une des façades de l'école: autrement dit il n'y pas tromperie sur l'identité du sujet, et/mais la photo ne donne aucune idée du bâtiment dans son ensemble. Cordialemeent.Palamède (talk) 14:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Bonjour, vous n'êtes pas accusé de "tromperie" ni d'une quelconque malhonnêteté, c'est une demande de suppression relativement "technique". C'est juste que votre photo est une œuvre dérivée basée sur les posters dans la vitrine, qui sont selon toute vraisemblance protégés par le droit d'auteur. Les droits existants sur les posters font que vous n'êtes pas le seul propriétaire des droits sur votre propre photo, et donc que vous n'avez pas la liberté de la publier sous une licence libre. Pour une explication plus complète, voyez Commons:Œuvre dérivée, et n'hésitez pas à me poser des questions en cas de besoin. --Eusebius (talk) 19:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Merci de votre réponse.Palamède (talk) 09:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Cathédrale de Tours - verrière de Saint Martin 1.jpg

Hey Eusebius, I used fragment of Your Picture File:Cathédrale de Tours - verrière de Saint Martin 1.jpg to my seminary work about technology of medieval stained-glass. As You suggest I had credited You as an author. This photo is great, thanks for that, greetings form Poland :) J-k (talk) 14:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you find it useful, it's kind of you to let me know. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 19:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

OTRS pending -> npd

Salut, qu'est-ce que tu veux dire par là exactement ? --Eusebius (talk) 20:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Salut,

Je veux dire ce que j'ai écris :p : il n'y a pas d'autorisation claire pour ce fichier pour le moment. Un courriel a été traité par mes soins, mais l'autorisation était clairement insuffisante. J'aurais pu apposer {{OTRS received}} mais je préfère npd à cette usine à gaz et l'image reste restaurable si l'ayant-droit se réveille trop tard.

Cordialement--Bapti ✉ 17:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

OK ok, j'ai demandé parce que je savais que tu n'utilises pas OTRS received. --Eusebius (talk) 21:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

出典先不明というタグを付けているが

Ranru eki.jpg について、あなたは出典先不明のタグを付けています。しかしこのファイルには、国土交通省の出典であることが既に明記してあります。私がこのファイルに対して、これ以上の出典を記することは不可能です。あなたが如何なる理由でこのタグを付けたのか、私に明確に説明する義務があります。 --Nisanyongo (talk) 11:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have tagged these pictures by mistake, so I'll untag them. However, a source link would be nice in order to show that it is truly the work of MLIT. --Eusebius (talk) 11:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Plus, you should not put yourself as the author if you didn't take the pictures yourself. --Eusebius (talk) 11:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Corporate pictures

Eusebius,

I am having trouble uploading my images. They are mine and I want them to be uploaded for my firms page. i sent the liscense info they asked me to fill out and 3 of my images won't link. along with that i am doing everything legally and i am going to be banned? these are all my property and i can't upload? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hz1234 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC) (UTC)

Hi. First, don't worry too much, the definitive ban is a very extreme sanction and we use it when it appears impossible to reason with a user which has become too disruptive. Establishing direct contact with admins and asking for help when you don't understand is the best way to show your good will and to solve the issues quickly and peacefully.

I have tagged or deleted several of your pictures because I could find them on various websites, in the same or greater resolution, which is often a sign that the uploader is not the creator (and therefore not the copyright holder). I may also have given you a few warnings because you re-uploaded them after deletion instead of requesting a formal undeletion (COM:UDEL) or solving the problem directly with the admin (me). This is for the explanation about what happened already.

The pictures now: you say they are "yours" and you want them for your firm's page. By yours, do you mean you are the original creator of the works? Did you create them for your company? If so, what we need is a formal e-mail from them (sample here, to be sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org) containing a copyright release, or eventually a declaration that you in person (not them) hold copyright and therefore have the ability to release the pictures yourself (which is unlikely if you were hired to make the illustrations). Also, a link to the original pictures as published by your firm, if there is such a thing, would be great and useful in the "source" field.

Please don't hesitate to ask again if you need to, and do tell me when an e-mail has been sent, so that I can update information on the image pages.

Side note: please sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~) when on a talk page. --Eusebius (talk) 20:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, Well yes the images were created by me for me (for my firm by my firm) for our use. all the images I have uploaded are on my firms website, but because i can not upload the links to the images because I can not publish the page until i get the images uploaded; you will find all the images at http://www.asymptote.net/. on top of that i sent you that formal email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org for the images in question yesterday, so you should have that from my company email account verifying the situation. I have the right and ability to release these pictures! and i want them on my firms page!!

as for the resolution issue. your logic is right, but also wrong. I want to have a low res image so other people can't take my image and blow it up or use it for their own larger or more involved work with out contacting me. these are the images i am using on the web and using low res images will decrease load time for the end user.

Links to Images!

http://www.asymptote.net/buildings/the-azzano%E2%80%94san-paolo-master-plan/ http://www.asymptote.net/buildings/penang-global-city-center/ http://www.asymptote.net/interiors-and-furniture/carlos-miele-flagship-nyc/

i don't know what to say.. images are mine i own them i want them unlocked what else do i need to do. did you get my emails? i can forward them directly to you but i sent it to that address.

Hz1234 (talk) 22:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC) hz

Hi. I will update the image pages in order to show that a permission e-mail has been send. If you upload more images of the same kind, please put {{OTRS pending}} in the "permission" field. Also, please put something like http://www.asymptote.net/ in the source field. About resolution, I was only explaining why I initially thought the images were copyright violations. Releasing small sized pictures is ok in itself. --Eusebius (talk) 07:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Eusebius, I just got an update from you about my images. I added the OTRS pending to all my images and have all the images copyright release sent to permissions-commons wikimedia.org . how long will it take for you to process this and also how long will it be before my images that were banned are unlocked. Will i have to re upload the images that are not available and re send the permission form?

Hz1234 (talk) 18:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It usually takes quite a while before an e-mail is validated (about a month), so I'll just restore the pictures and add an "OTRS pending" tag. --Eusebius (talk) 21:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

thanks

but I don't have much to reply. If someone wants to review the unblock, it's fine for me. -- Drini 18:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't have access to the elements leading to your ban, so only you can lift it if you consider it appropriate. Plus the user is addressing you, probably because I've already refused to unblock him in the past. --Eusebius (talk) 11:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Eilean Donan image

Now used at en:List of islands of Scotland. W. L. Tarbert (talk) 10:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. --Eusebius (talk) 11:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Categorisation

Salut et fraternité !

Je n'ai pas vandalisé les catégories mais par contre j'ai catégorisé un nombre respectable de clichés ainsi que le demandait le cartouche, maintenant disparu

En ce qui concerne les catégories j'ai simplement modifié une catégorie dont l'intitulé était en «glowish» (not in french et pas en anglais non plus) et j'ai débuté la traduction en anglais pour que tout soit unifié.

Pour le reste j'ai crée les sous catégories qui me semblaient nécessaires. Vous pouvez les supprimer car elles ne contiennent guère que mes photos. Comme R'n'R a traduit la catégorie Rue de Bayonne, si vous désirez les conserver il reste à traduire Géographie de Bayonne dans la formulation qui vous conviendra. Même requête pour les Rivières à Bayonne.

La liberté ou la mort !

DVil, vandale bayonnais. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvillafruela (talk • contribs) 07:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC) (UTC)

Vous avez créé des catégories en-dehors de toute convention de nommage (Commons:Naming categories, Commons:Language policy), vous avez créé des sous-catégories qui n'étaient pas dans leur catégorie-mère, vous avez créé des catégories qui contenaient dans leur titre des notions différentes et qui de plus étaient en doublon avec des catégories existantes, vous avez remplacé des catégories spécifiques par des catégories moins spécifiques, vous avez introduit de la sur-catégorisation (catégorisation à la fois dans une catégorie spécifique et dans une catégorie parente moins spécifique), vous avez supprimé des informations de catégorisation pertinentes dans Category:Cathédrale Sainte-Marie de Bayonne et avez recommencé une deuxième fois après que je suis passé derrière pour corriger. Plutôt que de persister en disant que vous aviez raison, je vous invite encore une fois à lire le lien que je vous ai pointé et à regarder de près les corrections que j'ai apportées à vos actions en vous assurant que vous en comprenez la raison (ou, le cas échéant, à me demander des précisions). Merci pour votre contribution. --Eusebius (talk) 08:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Sepiola atlantica.jpg.

This animal is NOT a coastal animal, so the categorization is absurd. 78.22.249.51 11:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Perhaps, but I doubt that categorizing it as a land animal makes the situation less absurd. Successive reverts (edit wars) are not welcome and lead to temporary page protection. The right way is to trigger a discussion. To quote the policy:

Pages experiencing edit warring as the result of a dispute may be temporarily protected. During this time, administrators should only make significant changes if there is consensus to do so. Any proposed changes should be discussed on the talk page. Such requests may, if they are immediate and uncontroversial, be accompanied by the {{Editprotected}} tag to attract administrators' attention.

The talk page of the image is of course not protected. Also, please think about creating an account if you want to contribute to the project (which you're very welcome to do). Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 18:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

uploaded the telecentre images again

recently i have uploaded some images. here is the image gallery [5]. this time the author has sent me a written authentication about the images and the PDF copy of the book. i have forwarded these things to permissions. please review this issue.

thanks -- Nasir Khan Saikat ^{(Talk|Contributions)} 16:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not have time to review it myself, but please check that you have had the permission sent not from the author of the book, but from the copyright holders of the illustrations. I seriously doubt that the author can pretend to be the copyright holder of the official logo of the Swiss army, for instance. It is not because they have had the permission to use the illustrations in a book that they have the right to relicense the material. --Eusebius (talk) 18:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

File:JRontgen.jpg

FYI, COM:UNDEL#File:JRontgen.jpg is about a file you deleted. Wknight94 ^talk 20:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. --Eusebius (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Dralimohammadi.jpg

Hi, it's a photo taken from pamphlet obituary of en:Masoud Alimohammadi and I have taken it myself. I don't know how to proof it, is metedata enough? but I don't know about the creator of the original document, maybe his family. Amirreza (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I have no doubt you have taken the picture yourself, but it is a derivative work of both the text (maybe copyrightable, maybe not, I cannot tell) and the picture (copyrightable). Unless we have a proper permission statement from the copyright holders (the photographer of the central picture, for instance), we cannot host it on Commons. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 21:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

For your attention

Here - regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! --Eusebius (talk) 09:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Should I transclude the RfCU and put notifications on pumps and lists? --Eusebius (talk) 10:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to transclude, I'm around for 30 mins or so and can do the VP and admin board. Do any others that you see fit (it is Meta policy that such requests should be "advertised" to the community"). Regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks again! --Eusebius (talk) 10:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I transcluded the request and added an announcement on the Bistro. And thanks Eusebius for accepting the nomination! I've always appreciated your work around here, and I'm glad to see you getting even more involved. –Tryphon ^☂ 10:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, thank you for your kind comments! I'm currently writing to Commons-l, I think it's the last place where to advertise the Rf. --Eusebius (talk) 10:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Nom de catégorie

Bonjour,

j'ai créé un peu vite la catégorie "César Awards" mais j'ai vu ensuite que quelqu'un avait déjà créé "César Award". Serait-il possible de fusionner les deux (idéalement en gardant le pluriel, qui est amha plus adapté) ? Merci JJ Georges (talk) 10:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Je vais regarder. Je ne sais pas si le pluriel est le plus adapté, étant donné qu'il n'y a qu'un César. Je verrai ce qui est fait avec les autres prix du même genre et j'harmoniserai. Merci de l'info. --Eusebius (talk) 11:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Done pluriel conservé. --Eusebius (talk) 11:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Bonjour, j'ai rajouté deux version plus grandes et plus nettes de deux fichiers, File:Jean_Dujardin_Alexandra_Lamy.jpg et File:Les_Inconnus.jpg mais résultats, comme les fichiers sont plus grands, les photos sont toutes déformées et me voilà fort marri. Y-a-t-il un moyen d'arranger ça, svp ? (sinon tant pis, autant revenir aux anciennes versions en écrasant les nouvelles). merci JJ Georges (talk) 15:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Ce genre de truc arrive lorsque la nouvelle version n'a pas les mêmes proportions que l'ancienne. C'est normal mais c'est transitoire. Ca devrait être bon maintenant, non ? --Eusebius (talk) 20:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Ca semble s'être arrangé. Par contre, je suis un imbécile ; j'ai un problème avec ce fichier : File:Guillaume Depardieu Cannes nineties.jpg En faisant l'upload massif, je me suis tout simplement trompé quant à la personne représentée : il ne s'agit pas de Guillaume Depardieu... mais de Julian Sands (ce qui est tant mieux dans un sens, car il n'y avait pas de photo de lui). Serait-il possible de rebaptiser le fichier une fois que l'autorisation otrs que l'auteur doit envoyer aura été validée ? Merci. JJ Georges (talk) 20:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Je vais renommer tout de suite en laissant une redirection. --Eusebius (talk) 20:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Merci ! Pendant qu'on y est, pourriez-vous renommer File:Stéphane_Rousseau Canne.jpg (j'ai oublié le S final de "Cannes") et dans un autre genre File:Hungaria Government 1919.jpg (c'est "Hungarian", faute de frappe). Merci JJ Georges (talk) 07:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. Vous pouvez utiliser le modèle {{Rename}} pour ce genre de tâches. --Eusebius (talk) 08:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Je ne savais pas. Merci ! JJ Georges (talk) 09:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Zvonareva.jpg

Concerning the notice about this image you placed on my talk page, you need to contact the original uploader about it, User:Julius1990 (who is apparently an administrator on the German Wikipedia), not me. I merely cropped the existing image and had nothing to do with uploading it originally. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I've copied your notice to the talk page of User:Julius1990. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Unfortunately, the notice is automatically delivered to the latest uploader. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 12:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I see -- thanks for the explanation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

File:KVB3_spec.jpg

C' est le reproduction de ma propre carte KVB3 avec une surimprimation "Specimen". (les détails, les noms, etc. sont noter a l’ autre coté). L’ emploi de ce modèle pour explications est libre et se trouvent sur beaucoup des trimestriels, websites, règlements, etc. J’ ai donné cet emploi pars que c’ est importent de reconnaître si quelqu'un dit : je suis en ordre avec ça. On peut comparer avec l’ usage de : Bestand:Paspoort NL.jpg (http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reispas)Guidobl (talk) 12:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Bonjour. Non, on ne peut pas comparer, c'est totalement différent. Je vous invite à lire COM:DW pour les détails, mais en résumé : votre photo est une oeuvre dérivée de votre carte. C'est la personne qui a dessiné la carte qui détient les droits dessus, et vous ne pouvez pas publier une photo de la carte sous licence libre sans son accord (à moins que pour une raison que je n'ai pas saisie, l'illustration de la carte soit dans le domaine public). Dans le cas du passeport, le seul élément qui soit assez original pour être protégé est le blason, dont la représentation en question est dans le domaine public en tant qu'oeuvre du gouvernement néerlandais ({{PD-NL-Gov}}). --Eusebius (talk) 15:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

J’ai demandé au présidant de KBF (Belgique), qui est le propriétaire de ce si. On ne sait pas, par se que c’ est de travail d’un groupe de KBF et le NKBV (Pays Bas). Mais on a me promis de chercher dans les rapports le nom de dessinateur de base. Un peu de patience. Guidobl (talk) 09:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, je vais mettre à jour la page de l'image. --Eusebius (talk) 14:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Aujourd'hui, j' ai reçu l'adresse de mail de dessinateur de base, donc encore un peu de patience. Guidobl (talk) 16:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Ipsoc-foto

Hello, This is the permission. It was sent to permission-commons. I hope this mail will do. BW [...] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katho Ipsoc (talk • contribs) 21:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC) (UTC)

I have noted that a permission e-mail has been sent. It will be processed by an OTRS volunteer. Please note that it can take some time. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 22:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

ok, thanks, sorry for the amateurism Katho, departement Ipsoc 19:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Famous Montenegrins

File:Famous Montenegrins.png

How come there isn't any information who did it? I made it with photos from Wikipedia. It's all written there. And I uploaded it 7 months ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rave92#File_source_problem_with_File:Famous_Montenegrins.png

Rave92 (talk) 11:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

You need to reference all the pictures used to make this composition as well as their authors, in accordance with the licenses under which they must have been published and with the WMF policies (although the processing of this kind of case may differ on Commons and on the English Wikipedia, with which I'm not familiar). The total lack of sourcing makes it, very simply, an "unsourced" picture. I have tagged it today because it has just been imported (probably not for the first time) on Commons, and tagged here as missing a source. There is obviously a need to address the root issue, i.e. the sourcing of the original file on the English WP. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 11:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

VIC - VIC

Ah ben alors ça c'est assez drôle : pour cette nouvelle VIC Commons:Valued image candidates/Klagemauer.JPG, Berthold nous a rappelé qu'il y avait eu un précédent. Ce qui m'amuse, c'est que nous avons eu la même hésitation (inversée) à quelques mois d'écart. Aurais-tu le temps de jeter un œil (et un avis) sur la VIC en cours ? @+, --Myrabella (talk) 09:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

J'ai ajouté un commentaire. --Eusebius (talk) 09:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

File:MODHIR AHMED "Self Portrait" 2004-102x70,5cm 1.jpg

Hello Eusebius, I sometimes find it a little difficult to add a copyvio tag to certain images. This image, for example, seems to be a copyright violation, but it was uploaded by somebody who is close to the author, and therefore might have permission. What should I do in such a case? Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 17:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. In this case you might want to add a "no permission" tag. If you don't have a "no permission" link in the left-hand menu, you should activate the "Quick Delete" gadget in your preferences. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 17:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 18:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

File:MODHIR_AHMED_"Self_Portrait"_2004-102x70,5cm_1.jpg

Hi Eusebius,

When i uploaded the image i think i agreed to license the file under Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike licenses. What is the simplest possible way to settle this issue?

Thank you for your help.Tokistar (talk) 12:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Just like I have explained on your talk page: We need a formal release permission from Modhir Ahmed (even in the case it is you), sent by e-mail following the OTRS procedure. Is there something specific that you did not understand?

Talk back

	Hello, Eusebius/Archives. You have new messages at IngerAlHaosului's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ English ∙ español ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ हिन्दी ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ Tagalog ∙ Türkçe ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Swedish "press images"

Hi. How can you be so sure that my pictures lack proof of license, when you can not read the Swedish source pages? I would suggest you leave this hardly constructive work of questioning obviously free press images to your Swedish colleagues. /Urbourbo (talk) 11:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Please take an example, an image which I have tagged, and explain to me why it was released under a free license. Where is the CC-BY-SA release here, by instance? I just couldn't find it. You can point me to statements in Swedish if you wish. --Eusebius (talk) 13:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Trompette - corps.JPG

Hello, I'd like to nominate file:Trompette - corps.JPG as a VI, however it might interfere with the withdrawal bot test. May you please suggest your opinion? --Rastaman3000 (talk) - Visit my new user-page! 17:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Actually, if I have chosen this picture for the bot test VI page, it is because it is incomplete and I don't really see it as a good VI candidate. My long-term plan is to make a composition with the naked body and all the different pieces around it. My piston valve picture should give you an idea of what I have in mind (I'd like to make it both FP, QI and VI). The pictures are shot, but the postprocessing takes an awfully long time and I work on it only once in a while. However, if you have a clear idea about this VI nomination, feel free to act. I'll delete the test bot page and make a new one when I need it. --Eusebius (talk) 19:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your reply. After reading it, I've decided to leave it to you. I hope that you image will indeed be promoted. --Rastaman3000 (talk) - Visit my new user-page! 18:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Deleted coin images

You have deleted several coin images and marked others for deletion why?Isnt the OTRS ticket valid permission

This work is free and may be used by anyone for any purpose. If you wish to use this content, you do not need to request permission as long as you follow any licensing requirements mentioned on this page.

The Wikimedia Foundation has received an e-mail confirming that the copyright holder has approved publication under the terms mentioned on this page. This correspondence has been reviewed by a Volunteer Response Team (VRT) member and stored in our permission archive. The correspondence is available to trusted volunteers as ticket #2006080810014758.

If you have questions about the archived correspondence, please use the VRT noticeboard. Ticket link: https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketNumber=2006080810014758
Find other files from the same ticket:

?--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 05:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes and no. The ticket is valid for the photographer's permission, but we don't have any permission from the central banks, which hold copyright over the coin designs (unless in a very little number of countries which have a copyright exemption, and of course in the case of coins and banknotes which are PD by age). See Commons:Currency for details. --Eusebius (talk) 07:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

oooo,well you can see where i got confused, i assumed that people actually checked the OTRS before approving it.

On a side note please explain in detail why is this superior? And what does the pb in please leave it to the admins to remove pb tags.

--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 08:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

About coins: copyright on currency, and especially on coins might be the most difficult kind of issue I have to deal with on Commons, for various reasons: it is difficult to review the national laws, because they mix copyright and non-copyright restrictions (or because they simply don't mention currency), users are often unaware of the copyright issues, and for PD coins the 2D/3D limit leads to difficult situation (although the WMF policy is clear). This is worsened by the fact that these pictures are definitely useful for the projects. Conclusion: time and effort consumption for admins, frustration for contributors.

About the formatting of source/author/etc: there is a page somewhere explaining which information is useful and which one can be dropped when moving a file from a sister project, but I can't find it right now. Basically, only the original source is interesting (the fact that the image was first uploaded on WP is shown only in the log, not in the source field) and the identity of uploader and mover, if not linked to the creation of the image, don't bring any useful information about it. Once again, it shows either in the text log or in the upload info.

About removing problem tags: in this case the problem tag could be removed, but each time a file is tagged, an admin or trusted user should review it. Formally speaking, if you upload a file that gets tagged as missing source/permission/license, you are probably not in the best position to evaluate whether its status is now ok. Practically, problem tag removal is commonly performed in bad faith (just plain removal, without addressing the issue) and users get blocked every day for that, after a specific warning ({{Dont remove nsd or nld}}) of course. --Eusebius (talk) 09:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok that makes sense but commons helper often adds a pair of }} after the description element in the information template {{en|.....}}}} braking the template and/or adding multiple instances of the same license tag i can still fix those right?--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 09:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure, feel free to clean according to good sense. CommonsHelper formatting is not a reference. The page I was talking about is intended to help users clean after the bot move. --Eusebius (talk) 09:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Јое photos

Photos can be bigger if needs!--Струјајое (talk) 22:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Full size originals are always preferred. If you can provide the files as they come out of the camera (+ postprocessing if you do some), it will be appreciated (and it would give more "credibility" to your "own work" statements, but it is a detail). --Eusebius (talk) 22:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

PUF on the English wiki

Hello. You recently made this edit on the English wiki. The entry you restored was removed by SlimVirgin. I asked why it was removed, but I was ignored.--Rockfang (talk) 09:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I guessed it was just an edition mistake. --Eusebius (talk) 10:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

TUSC token d8be503c489f0929d14413b2d732f572

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account! --Eusebius (talk) 10:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Archive?

Hi, Guillaume! Hope you had a good beginning of the year 2010! I just looked into my User talk. Would you recommend me to put the content into the archives? The discussions there are over one year old. Could I do this with this MiszaBot/config you are using on top of your own User talk? Regards, --Schnobby (talk) 09:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, Miszabot is a convenient way to do that. The full documentation is available here. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 12:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. I put everything on top of my User talk (Example 3) and hope it will work. Have a nice day! Cheers, --Schnobby (talk) 14:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. It worked somehow, but there are still a few items on my User talk. Is that allright? Or is something missing? Kind regards, Schnobby (talk) 13:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea why it doesn't fully work, sorry. I remember having this kind of issues sometimes. --Eusebius (talk) 13:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It's because, by default 5 threads will left on the talk page as a minimum. Another value can be set with the minthreadsleft parameters. I have set it to zero on Schnobbys talk page, as it seemed like this was what the user was after. --Slaunger (talk) 13:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Oooooooh... Thanks a lot! --Eusebius (talk) 13:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to you too, Guillaume, I just thanked Slaunger for helping us. Everything is OK now. Cheers, --Schnobby (talk) 09:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

pls delete

delete this files, forgot about freedom of panorama, freedom of panorama status is unknown File:Jalalpur_jattan_factory_minar.jpg File:Jalalpur_jattan_factory.jpg File:Jalalpur_jattan_masjid_minar_view.jpg --IngerAlHaosului (talk) 07:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

No need. These pictures do not have a copyrighted work as their main subject. --Eusebius (talk) 08:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Historique

Bonjour,

serait-il possible svp de purger l'historique de ces deux fichiers :

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Michel_Drucker_avec_le_chef_du_restaurant_Le_Croque_Chou.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sylvain_Augier_avec_le_chef_du_restaurant_Le_Croque_Chou.jpg

Il parait que la présence d'une personne privée (chef et actionnaire du restaurant qui possède les photos, mais bon...) pourrait poser un problème de "droit à l'image". J'ai donc réduit la chose pour que cette personne n'apparaisse plus. Merci

Tant qu'à faire, pourriez-vous également purger l'historique de celle-ci :

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Zhude.jpg

en découvrant que la première version était copyrightée (oeuvre apparemment d'un photographe occidental ?) j'était allé chercher une version pd. Merci également JJ Georges (talk) 12:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Done, sans grande conviction pour les deux premières. Pour la troisième, si ce n'est pas la même image il vaut mieux uploader sous un autre nom pour ne pas induire en erreur les réutilisateurs. --Eusebius (talk) 13:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Merci. Pourquoi, "sans grande conviction" ? JJ Georges (talk) 13:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Parce que je me demandais dans quelle mesure le contenu du ticket ne pouvait pas servir d'autorisation de publication. --Eusebius (talk) 13:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Oui, je sais, mais il semble qu'il y avait prise de tête indue à ce sujet, donc j'ai préféré trancher dans le vif. Au fait, juste un service à vous demander : en ce moment, je m'auto-impose un wikibreak (sauf sur commons) et j'essaie de m'y tenir. Si vous avez une minute de libre, serait-il possible de vous demander de les insérer dans les articles consacrés à ces deux personnes ? (je parle des versions dérivées de ces deux images, pas des originales) Merci. JJ Georges (talk) 13:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, mais c'est un contournement illégal de wikibreak, ce sera très sévèrement sanctionné. --Eusebius (talk) 13:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Merci d'avance, en fait précision~, je pensais à celles-ci : http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Michel_Drucker_2006.jpg et http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sylvain_Augier_2006.jpg Pour la sanction, je tremble d'avance ! cordialement JJ Georges (talk) 13:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

(indent reset) Je trouve celle de Drucker vraiment trop moche (artefacts JPEG, pixels), je mets mon veto (enfin, quelqu'un d'autre le fera s'il le souhaite)... Fait pour Augier. --Eusebius (talk) 14:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Pas grave, c'est vrai que la lumière est pourrie pour Drucker. Merci. JJ Georges (talk) 14:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Srpska_torta_-_zastava.jpg

The permission for this file (and numerous other files) has been sent to the public list Wikimediasr-l and could be seen here, as is stated on the file's description page. Nikola (talk) 03:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. We need a permission from somebody at uputstva.co.yu. Permissions are valid only if registered through e-mail by an OTRS agent, following the procedure explained on your talk page. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 07:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

This permission was given before the OTRS system was used. As such, it does not require an OTRS ticket.

Nevertheless, I have reconfirmed the permission through OTRS[6]. Nikola (talk) 07:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's not in the right queue, for I don't have access. I'll ask some other agent to have a look at it. However, if it is the same as the mailing list permission, I don't really see why it would have been accepted (because of the watermark). --Eusebius (talk) 09:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

What is the problem with the watermark? Nikola (talk) 10:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The picture is watermarked to a website. To accept a permission, we should see in the permission e-mail some kind of clear link between the person sending the e-mail, and the website. Since this one seems to be a defunct website with no whois information left, our "verification standards" should probably be lower than usual, though. I think an e-mail from one of the addresses at uputstva.net or the address listed here would clear the situation (it is the closest information I could find related to the original website), but on the basis of what I've seen I am ready to believe that the origin of the permission is ok anyway. --Eusebius (talk) 10:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Blue nude 04

Hi Guillaume, would you be so kind and change my file:Blue Nude 04 into Blue nude 04 - it irritates me somehow that number 4 is on top, because "Nude" has a capital letter. Hope you are fine! Thanks, Schnobby (talk) 12:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. If you want an image to be renamed, you can use {{Rename}}. --Eusebius (talk) 13:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Zoisite

Bonjour, J’ai la prétention, immodeste, d’essayer de mettre un peu d’ordre en minéralogie. Dans la page Zoisite, il existe deux sous pages parfaitement créées et documentées, et 8 photos qui sont des Anyolites (a savoir des chrome-zoisite associé à deux autres minéraux). Voilà mon problème comment créer la catégorie anyolite pour y verser ces 8 photos ? Meric Amicalement --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Bonjour, à ce que je vois la catégorie Category:Anyolite existe déjà, il faut juste améliorer sa catégorisation. Sinon, pour créer une catégorie Category:Foobar, il suffit de suivre le lien que je viens de faire et de modifier, puis d'enregistrer la page. --Eusebius (talk) 08:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Grace à tes conseils je progresse j’ai amélioré la catégorie anyolite et j’ai crée la catégorie Tschermakite.

Dans la page anyolite il y a une sous catégorie H hornblende qui n’a rien à faire la : il y avait confusion entre Hornblende et Tschermakite qui sont deux espèces différentes.

Comment supprimer cette fausse référence ?

Merci de ta patience --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Si Category:Hornblende est mal catégorisée, il faut aller sur sa page de catégorie et la modifier pour la remettre dans la bonne catégorie (apparemment, supprimer "Anyolite" et la remplacer par une autre). --Eusebius (talk) 12:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

flickr-question

I would like to upload some flickr-picture, I wrote to the author, and he put CC-licence to the picture, here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/styrheim/4338386622/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/styrheim/4337644335/

Is that enought to upload them, or do I have to request permission from him? --'''[[User:Eino81|Eino81]]'''''[[Keskustelu käyttäjästä:Eino81|keskustelu]]'' [[Image:Flag of Hungary.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Finland.svg|20px]] (talk) 22:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. There is no need to request a permission e-mail if the user puts his pictures under an accepted license. It is unfortunately not the case here, because he used CC-BY-ND, ND standing for "non-derivative". This restrictions makes the license unfree (details here). Could you convince him to use either CC-BY or CC-BY-SA? Once it is done, you can simply use the Flickr upload tool. --Eusebius (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I missed an issue: for the first picture, we need a formal permission from the original artist. The photographer has, by default, no rights to license his picture under a Creative Commons license, because the artist holds rights over it. Sorry. --Eusebius (talk) 22:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I wrote to the author to get that CC-BY-(SA). But the other one, you can delete that: File:Patursson Steel glass.jpg - I can't write to the artist... :( By the way, one question, how could someone become an OTRS-member ? :) --'''[[User:Eino81|Eino81]]'''''[[Keskustelu käyttäjästä:Eino81|keskustelu]]'' [[Image:Flag of Hungary.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Finland.svg|20px]] (talk) 23:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't find the file you're referring to. About your second question, see the following pages: m:OTRS, m:OTRS/IRC channel, m:OTRS/volunteering. --Eusebius (talk) 06:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, it's been deleted now :) --'''[[User:Eino81|Eino81]]'''''[[Keskustelu käyttäjästä:Eino81|keskustelu]]'' [[Image:Flag of Hungary.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Finland.svg|20px]] (talk) 09:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

By the way, the author changed the licence of this photo: File:Brendan Patursson.jpg, so you can corrct that template there --'''[[User:Eino81|Eino81]]'''''[[Keskustelu käyttäjästä:Eino81|keskustelu]]'' [[Image:Flag of Hungary.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Finland.svg|20px]] (talk) 09:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. Maybe you should try to clean your signature a little bit... --Eusebius (talk) 09:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations

If that is the correct word. A well deserved result. Thanks for helping, if you need me for anything let me know. Regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I added m:Steward_requests/Permissions#Eusebius@Commons. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both. I think I will begin with one or two weeks of inactivity (too many deadlines), but Herby, if you have anything to read other than the public pages on meta, feel free to give me pointers... --Eusebius (talk) 15:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Félicitations ! Cdlt, VIGNERON * ^discut. 16:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Congrats! Cheers, Rocket000 (talk) 17:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Welcome aboard. One more active Check User will be great! Tiptoety ^talk 22:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Tiptoety, Congratulations

. ■ MMXX ^talk 22:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Like to hear this. In my opinion a very good decision. Congratulations! Regards, -- Schnobby (talk) 14:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations! Cirt (talk) 22:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Auteur sous pseudonyme

Bonjour, j'aurais besoin d'une réponse certaine : je souhaite importer des cartes d'un site web personnel et j'ai pour cela contacté le propriétaire qui avait mis son travail sous licence libre, excepté diffusion commerciale. Il est d'accord pour la mettre sous cc-by-sa mais refuse de dévoiler son identité dans la lettre-type. Puis je lui proposer d'inscrire son pseudonyme et, pour authentifier le tout, de préciserr qu'il est bien le webmaster du site? --prosopee (talk) 08:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Hum. Ca devrait être ok, mais il faut que je vérifie. Pas de problème évidemment pour attacher les droits d'auteur à un pseudo, mais il faut voir ce que la fondation exige au niveau de la déclaration. Tu as bien précisé que l'e-mail envoyé à permissions-commons restait complètement confidentiel ? --Eusebius (talk) 08:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Oui je lui ai précisé mais je crois qu'il va accepter sous pseudonyme. On se tient au courant, --prosopee (talk) 08:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

J'ai demandé une confirmation sur la mailing list. --Eusebius (talk) 08:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Kim Saigh 2

File:Kim Saigh 02.jpg

The named artist is the member of that gallery, which gave permission for that picture. If it is not enough for you, I will crop that picture and I will use only Kim's figure. Is that good? --Eino81^keskustelu 21:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's not "for me". It wasn't an obvious issue, so I only opened a regular deletion request. I will not close it myself, but this info might be enough for other admins. Would you care to explain it on the deletion request page? --Eusebius (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

By the way, could you see the File:Kim Saigh 01.jpg? I got the right flickr-licence since then. Could you change that flickr-template there? --Eino81^keskustelu

22:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Done --Eusebius (talk) 22:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Merci, mon ami! :) I have still one other unseen flickr-uploading today: File:Peter Ujvagi 01.jpg Could you see that, too? --Eino81^keskustelu

22:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Done --Eusebius (talk) 22:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

File:KVB3_spec.jpg

Ici, le texte reçu par email:

E-mail supprimé

Actuellement, j'attends un mail de de Bart van Raaij.

Guidobl (talk) 10:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Bonjour, tous les e-mails de permission sont à adresser à permission-commons@wikimedia.org. Merci de ne pas publier de contenus d'e-mails (qui contiennent des données personnelles) sur le wiki ! --Eusebius (talk) 12:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, ici le copy de mail reçu le 10 fevr 2010:

E-mail supprimé

J' envoi aussi ce mail à permission-commons@wikimedia.org Guidobl (talk) 12:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

OK. Encore une fois, ne publiez pas sur le wiki le contenu de correspondances privées. De plus, si vous utilisez les textes de permission standard, ça évitera à vos e-mails de permission d'être refusés et de devoir recontacter les ayants-droits... --Eusebius (talk) 12:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Question about licence

Is there any licence for these things:

The author would like to use these photos for Wikipedia only
The author would like to get listed as the photograper and owner of the pictures and the copyrights.

Because I got two piuctures, but the author told me these. Which licence could we use in the commons, if there is any licence for that. Please, answer now on my talk page. --Eino81^keskustelu 21:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Answered on your talk page. --Eusebius (talk) 21:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I wrote this to the author. I hope, he will help us. Although it's only a picture about a Faeroese artist, Tróndur Patursson, one of my role-models. I will "fight" for that picture, it is a very good one. If I get a permission, you will see it. By the way, because we talk a lot, I like to get messages on my talk page :) --Eino81^keskustelu

21:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

So, this was the problematic picture (File:Tróndur Patursson Portrait.jpg) but today I got the permission, I've sent it to the commons. --Eino81^keskustelu 13:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Good. --Eusebius (talk) 13:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

My Image copyright violation

The image for File:FrancistownAirportRendering.jpg was tagged as unsourced. I made a change or two, please check to see if they are valid. I can try to provide further details if needed. Thanks and sorry for my mistake!!! (Laks.t.cfc13 (talk) 07:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)) (If not working, reply on my wikipedia talk page!: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Laks.t.cfc13 / http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Laks.t.cfc13. Thanks again!

As you can see the "no source" tag is gone already. The sourcing status is almost ok. What we miss now is a formal authorization from the author of the file, and probably evidence that the source software is under a free license. --Eusebius (talk) 08:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Nicole Nau pictures

File:Briefmarke.jpg

Dear Eusebios I see I have a lots of problems.... I am new and I think I heve to learn a lot!

1. File:Nau_Pereyra_Folklore_Cajas.JPG Of course I can not take the image of my own dancing... You are right. But! This image has been taken of my own stuff with our camara during our show. In this case I think the rights are on the side of the artists, meens, the artist can handle their fotos as they like. Or I am wrong? I am new here, so sorry, if I am a bit confused. tell me, what do you need to keep this image on?

2. Nicole Nau & Luis Pereyra Tango.jpg This file is the same case as in 1. I work as professional dancer and ask my stuff to take pictures during the show in order to can make publicity. What do you need to keep the image on?

3. File:Briefmarke.jpg There I was wrong, I thought that as the stamp is an image of the argentine government it could be uploaded. But I understand that it is not like this. You have probabley to delay this image.

3. File Breifmarke.jpg It was just a mistake to write it wrong, so I tried it again.... Nau--NauNicole (talk) 06:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)Nicole

Hi. I'm afraid you are partly wrong about 1 and 2: the first copyright holder of a photograph is the photographer, he will definitely hold copyright over a picture of you like of anything else. It might not be the case if he is a hired photographer, with a contract specifying a full copyright transfer. This issue should be settled via an OTRS permission e-mail, since it involves information that could be private or confidential. As a/the subject, you may certainly have non-copyright rights over the picture (like personality rights or image rights, depending on your country) but Commons don't worry about them. As a dancer photographed during your performance, it is possible that you get copyright over this kind of picture if they can be considered a derivative work of your performance, but I wouldn't believe too much in it, for several reasons (it depends on the nature of copyright/author rights in your country, and above all it is very possible that a still image be not considered as communicating the essence of a performance primarily based on movement). In any case, this possible copyright of yours just adds to the photographer's copyright, it does not cancel it. Other issue, the author of the image is the photographer, and he, not you, should be credited as such in the "author" field.

I think I had something more to say but I forgot it. In essence, the copyright of an images primarily lies with the creator of that image, even though other people may hold partial copyright or other rights on it as well. --Eusebius (talk) 06:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Dushikuro

Hello, this user is created solely for the purpose to vandalize my user page. I suspect it's sockpuppet of some other user who may not be so happy of my actions, can you please run a check on this --Justass (talk) 21:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, he's an artist...

My first job! I'll let you know. --Eusebius (talk) 21:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Nothing special, as far as I can see. --Eusebius (talk) 21:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It's strange that user pops out of nowhere and start doing contributions like this :) --Justass (talk) 22:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe a more experienced CU would find something? --Eusebius (talk) 23:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

DC-Art screenshot permissions

Hi Eusebius, sorry to cause the issue as it results from my 1st attempts to write informative content on Wikipedia. Anyway, when I forward the permissions email onto the email address "permissions-commons@wikimedia.org" do we just type the filenames into the e-mail or can I get a blanket statement saying "any" image is granted permission?

cheers 78rpmrestorations (talk) 01:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)78rpmrestorations

Hi. You can either give one filename, or a list or filename, or something like "any image credited to XXX (or whose copyright belongs to XXX) and uploaded by User:78rpmrestorations". Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 09:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Eusebius, I wrote to Craig who inturn sent an authorisation email to the address provided. His e-mail address was DCtools@aol.com. Hopefully this will be sufficient(?) 78rpmrestorations (talk) 12:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)78rpmrestorations

It will be evaluated on OTRS, you'll get news via e-mail once the permission is received and acted upon. Just tell me when it is sent. --Eusebius (talk) 13:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Coquille dans l'image du jour

Bonjour Eusebius, Il y a une petite coquille dans la description de l'image du jour d'aujourd'hui, dans la page de l'image elle-même et dans les résumés POTD. Pougnadoires, hameau de la commune de Saint-Enimie, s'écrit avec un s final([7]). Et j'ose pas trop intervenir ! D'un autre côté, ce n'est pas fondamental pour la connaissance mondiale partagée, mais bon, je te le signale quand-même :-) --Myrabella (talk) 13:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Done Faut oser ! --Eusebius (talk) 13:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

photos

File:Plan de salut.jpg

Bonjour, Merci de me laisser du temps pour vérifier tout ce qui est demandé; Dans un premier temps, je suis l'auteur du graphique File:Plan de salut.jpg réalisé le 30 juin 2009, travail personnel (own work), auteur : moi . Et je suis aussi l'auteur des photos. En principe, les statues auraient largement plus de 70 ans, mais je verifie le tout. Merci d'être patient . A + --Maithe38 19:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Bonjour. En fait, pour le diagramme, ma question c'est d'où vient l'image du globe terrestre ? Pour le reste je ne doute pas que les photos soient de vous, mais les sujets photographiés et les législations nationales sur le copyright et le droit d'auteur peuvent éventuellement nous interdire de les conserver. Pour les photos, si vous avez des indications même partielles (nom de l'auteur, titre exact de l'oeuvre, etc.) je pourrai peut-être aider. --Eusebius (talk) 20:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Bonjour. Ah, je n'aurais pas pensé à ça ! Je ne sais plus. Je pense que le plus simple serait de refaire le plan en remplaçant la photo du globe terrestre par un graphique. --Maithe38 06:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Vous pouvez sans doute trouver des images du globe terrestre libres de droits ici sur Commons. --Eusebius (talk) 06:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

j'ai trouvé, mais oups, j'ai créé une horreur. Merci de supprimer cette dernière. Je repars dans la vraie vie. Je m'en ré-occupe quand je reviens--Maithe38 07:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Supprimé. Plutôt que de le télécharger comme un nouveau fichier, vous pouvez l'importer comme une nouvelle version de l'ancien, et je supprimerai uniquement la version originale. --Eusebius (talk) 08:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Bonjour, j'ai l'impression que j'arrive trop tard au sujet ds photos de chapelles de l'Eglise. voici la réponse officielle que j'ai reçue par mail aujourd'hui émanant du responsable des batiments : "bonsoir maithé, concernant les photos, il n'y a pas manifestment de restrictions pour prendre des photos des chapelles par contre on ne doit pas prendre de photos de la salle de culte, amicalement, pascale." Puis-je retélécharger File:Eglise Marseille .JPG ??? --Maithe38 19:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Bonjour, désolé mais non. Les propriétaires des bâtiments ne sont pas détenteurs des droits d'auteur. Ce qu'il faut, c'est une permission formelle de l'architecte de publier cette photo sous une licence libre. Vous pouvez essayer, mais ça n'arrive quasiment jamais... --Eusebius (talk) 19:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Plan de salut : j'ai recréé un graphique modifié (gloge terrestre sous licence libre) sous le meme nom et ce nom est refusé pour le motif 'Le nom du fichier que vous essayez de télécharger ("File:PLAN DE SALUT.jpg") a été refusé car considéré comme trop commun ou non informatif', pourtant, c'est le meme qu'initialement ; quoi faire ?? --Maithe38 21:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Est-ce que vous avez utilisé le lien "Téléverser une nouvelle version de ce fichier" sur la page de l'ancienne version ? --Eusebius (talk) 21:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

non, je vais faire ça --Maithe38 12:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

sinon, pour les statues à Temple Square, j'ai cherché sur tous les sites officiels et je me rends compte que n'apparaissent sur ces sites que les statues dont l'ancienneté ne fait aucun doute. J'en déduis qu'il faut supprimer celles que j'ai ajoutées (3 ou 4 je ne sais plus). Pouvez-vous supprimer svp ? Je les ajouterai dans 70 ans si je ne trouve pas la solution avant :) --Maithe38 12:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

La procédure suit son cours, elles seront supprimées (par un autre) si personne ne trouve l'info. --Eusebius (talk) 12:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

(indent reset) Est-ce que vous pourriez fournir la source pour l'image du globe terrestre ? Par ailleurs il y a sans doute des images plus jolies ici ou là, mais c'est uniquement esthétique. --Eusebius (talk) 13:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Permission for photos

I can deliver to you permission for using the all photos on site www.kragujevac.rs, City of Kragujevac! Please, can you sent to me some form for permission, which I will sent to you- and then there won’t be problems! --213.240.5.196 12:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)--213.240.5.196 12:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC) user:Струјајое

The standard permission form is here, and they should be sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Once a permission e-mail has been sent for an image, please put {{OTRS pending}} on the image page (in the "permission" field). Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 12:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Category:Les Invalides

Bonjour Eusebius, je pense que cette catégorie devrait être renommée en Hôtel des Invalides ou Hôtel national des Invalides et qu'il y a ici un amalgame entre la Cathédrale Saint-Louis-des-Invalides (Église des Soldats et siège diocésain) et le Dôme des Invalides (autrefois Chapelle Royale, puis Tombeau de Napoléon). Ce sont deux bâtiments distincts (autrefois réunis) chacun avec son entrée, l'un conçu par Libéral Bruant et achevé en 1677 par Jules Hardouin-Mansart, l'autre bâti par Hardouin-Mansart, en partie sur les plans de son oncle François. Le culte n'est à ma connaissance célébré que dans le premier. Je pense que ceci justifie deux categories. Le même amalgame existe dans l'article sur WP:fr. Qu'en penses-tu? --Bohème (talk) 13:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

J'étais persuadé que le dôme était dans la cathédrale. Je te laisse gérer. Mais je vois mal les catégories de la cathédrale être des sous-catégories de l'Hôtel, peut-être faut-il tout de même conserver "Les Invalides" comme une catégorie chapeau pour le complexe ? --Eusebius (talk) 13:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Tu me diras quand c'est fini ? Que je jette un coup d'oeil et que je voie si je comprends tout ? Pour l'instant c'est un peu flou pour moi, en l'état. --Eusebius (talk) 13:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Ce n'est pas compliqué: L'Hôtel (national) des Invalides est un ensemble de bâtiments, sorte de ville dans la ville (plan ici) qui abrite, en premier lieu, l' Institution nationale des Invalides avec son hôpital, et deux églises: la première (architecte Libéral Bruant, achevée par Hardouin-Mansart), aujourd'hui cathédrale Saint-Louis-des-Invalides, est celle ou étaient et sont célébré les messes pour les soldats, ainsi que des mariages et enterrements de militaires; la deuxième est une église à coupole (architecte Hardouin-Mansart) initialement appelée chapelle royale, aujourd'hui parfois église du dôme quoi que je ne sois pas sûre qu'elle ait réellement le statut d'un église. L'intérieur de cette dernière, fortement transformé au XIXe s. pour abriter le tombeau de Napoléon, conserve un autel, mais le bâtiment est d'avantage un monument touristique qu'une église (on verse d'ailleurs un droit d'entrée jumelé avec celui du musée, alors que l'entrée de la cathédrale est libre). Les effectifs ayant fort heureusement baissé (env. 90 pensionnaires, chiffre à vérifier, contre des milliers autrefois), une grande partie des salles autrefois réservées à la vie quotidienne des soldats et à la gestion (refectoires, dortoires, manufactures diverses ...) ont été attribuée au Musée de l'Armée. Donc sous la Catégorie (renommée si tu le veux bien) Hôtel des Invalides on devrait à mon humble avis trouver des catégories pour 1.) l'église Saint-Louis-des-Invalides (cathédrale depuis les années 80), 2.) le Dôme des Invalides (ancienne chapelle royale, transformée en tombeau), avec une sous-catégorie Tombeau de Napoléon, 3.) le Musée de l'Armée, et peut-être dans le futur 4.) une catégorie pour l'hôpital. C'est bon? J'ai ouvert la catégorie pour la cathédrale. Pour le reste je m'y recollerai demain. Bien à toi, --Bohème (talk) 14:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Oui c'est bon, ma confusion venait du fait que comme la catégorisation était en cours, il y avait deux catégories mentionnant une cathédrale. Alors que le dôme (le gros machin avec les colonnes, hein, on est d'accord ?) n'est pas une cathédrale. --Eusebius (talk) 15:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Dôme des Invalides. --Eusebius (talk) 15:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Corbin 3.jpg

Could you please check this image OTRS, but looks like it covers only one image on Commons and it looks not related File:Paparazzo Presents Cody Linley.jpg. Also if this is indeed a bogus permission please run CU to determine relation between User:Corbin Breslin and User:Chace Watson cos he already has an army of sockpuppets and some glitch on Corbin's images. Oh and also [8] this is original source --Justass (talk) 11:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Ticket is totally unrelated, as you suspected. My turn to play! --Eusebius (talk) 11:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

No clear evidence of sockpuppetry. --Eusebius (talk) 11:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Have a look at the /16 range, for this ISP the IP changes every day - regretably as with most ISPs. I recently  the usual behaviour in Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#Ticket check, besides the IP (same range) also the user agent is the same with of course some new versions over the time. --Martin H. (talk) 13:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I had seen the user agent (and the version updates) but it looked a bit thin to me. I did not remark the language issue, and did not identify the ISP. Also, an A or B class network looked quite wide to me. --Eusebius (talk) 15:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Jóhann Jóhannsson.jpg

Hey. The website where the image was taken explicitly states the files may be used anywhere without further permission. Thus asking further permission seems superfluous to me. Hannu (talk) 14:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. This is not considered (at least on Commons) as a permission to make commercial use and derivative works, as states the license tag you have used (we require explicit mentions of these two aspects). However, the phrasing suggest the website owner is in good dispositions and could certainly precise this fact if asked. If you think the problem tag is indue, you can transform it into a regular deletion request so that you, other users and admins can give their advice (and the keep/delete is then not anymore based on my sole evaluation). --Eusebius (talk) 15:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Flickr-ttol

Just one question about that tool: should I use there my flickr username or the username of the author of the pictures? --Eino81^keskustelu 11:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It is your Commons username, I believe. --Eusebius (talk) 11:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I tried the flickr-tool today. Like this: File:Hungarian Reformed Church Fairport Harbor Will the picture appear there do I have to upload? --Eino81^keskustelu

20:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

After one day there was only the summary, without picture, so I put the picture myself, on my own old way... I don't like this flickr-tool... Is it normal, that the picture don't appear after uploading? --Eino81^keskustelu

10:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The good picture is here: File:Hungarian Reformed Church Fairport Harbor.jpg (Oh I see something, in the first name there was no .jpg...) --Eino81^keskustelu 10:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I don't have much time these days. I think you have to click somewhere on the image page (there is a kind of message) in order to have the image actually uploaded. --Eusebius (talk) 19:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Question?

I want to ask you under which copyright tag I can upload this photocopy: http://photos-a.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash1/hs431.ash1/23841_104379686256157_100000523780713_113653_5508553_n.jpg

It's from http://www.ellisisland.org/

Thanks in advance!

P.S. Can you please answer on my talk page on WIKIPEDIA account (not Commons) as I don't check Commons that often like Wikipedia, here is the link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rave92

Rave92 (talk) 22:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Answered on your en.WP talk page ({{PD-ineligible}} or {{PD-text}}). --Eusebius (talk) 11:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Rave92 (talk) 15:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Pictures by User:Nicostamb

Hi,

I respectfully disagree with your comments concerning trains pictures.

First and foremost, a picture of a drive engine/a train might have been taken thanks to two persons : the photograph -who has pushed the camera's trigger indeed- and the driver -who has stopped the convoy in an appropriate place which is an unscheduled stop. So it's a real collaboration.

Secondly, the picture of the 26008 taken by Regis Chessum has been widely released on the Web, in many sites related to trains. I will check if there is any problem with this picture.

Thirdly, I don't know if there is a copyright issue with the 3D view of the new plane of Mr.Sarkozy. I will investigate a little further on that picture, but I believe there is no such issue. On the other hand, I will ask the author of Amtrak trains' pictures for an official permission.

Kindest regards

--Nicostamb (talk)

I will reply on your own talk page. --Eusebius (talk) 14:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

God Of War 3 Pictures You removed

The pictures you removed were taken by my camera, i do not see how that is violation of any copyrights.

They are derivative work of a copyrighted video game. See COM:DW for the details. Please log in to contribute, place new messages at the end of talk pages and sign your messages with four tildes. --Eusebius (talk) 10:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

VI promotions

Bonjour Eusebius!
Quelques VI nominations attendent l'achèvement. Je ne fais pas la clôture, si seulement mon vote au soutien se trouve.
Respectueusement, --George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. Sorry I don't have time for more reviewing. --Eusebius (talk) 10:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Bonjour Eusebius! Une ma nomination attend la clôture. Respectueusement, --George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. --Eusebius (talk) 11:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

And two set nominations wait for finalization process. I do not understand this procedure :-( --George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It's complex indeed. I don't have time now, sorry. They will have to wait. --Eusebius (talk) 17:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Bonjour Eusebius!
Quelques 4 VIC + 1 mon FPC nominations attendent l'achèvement. Je ne fais pas la clôture, si seulement mon vote au soutien se trouve.
Respectueusement, --George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Je passerai voir les VIC, je ne toucherai pas aux FPC. --Eusebius (talk) 08:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Bonjour Eusebius! Quelques VIC nominations attendent l'achèvement. Respectueusement, --George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. I don't think it is necessary to refrain from promoting like that! --Eusebius (talk) 06:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Bonjour Eusebius! Some nominations already ripe.
Once again about set of nominations. If you process it I will look your contribution and I will try to repeat it next time. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, closing sets is a bit annoying (it's all described here though). Doing it now. --Eusebius (talk) 19:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I looked Your contributions. And 4 VIC images wait for promotion before VICbot. I don't do promotion if it is my nomination or only my voting support it. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

At this point, promotion is mechanical, non-controversial. I think you shouldn't refrain from doing it yourself. --Eusebius (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

OK,

Done --George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Dent - winter view

The qi one - very nice image indeed :) Regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Bonjour Eusebius, J'allais t'écrire pour te dire exactement la même chose ! Oui, vraiment belle, ta dernière photo de la Dent de Crolles. Elle pourrait même détrôner la VI actuelle, à mon avis. Je voterai volontiers sur une MVR ;-) Amitiés, --Myrabella (talk) 15:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both! Herby: I've found why my previous image of the Dent (and many others taken with my 70-300mm) was unsharp: bad UV filter... Myrabella: I thought about it. I have no strong opinion about which one is best suited, but since the Dent spends most of the year without snow, I'd tend to keep the current one. --Eusebius (talk) 16:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Snowy, but better lightened: there's room for a MVR discussion, it's up to you... Or even to me: after all, I could set up the MVR myself, as a true fan, to gather other reviewers' opinions :-D. Don't worry, there are some pending VICs still needing review, so it isn't an urge for me ;-) --Myrabella (talk) 17:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to set up an MVR some day... As I said I have no strong opinion about it. --Eusebius (talk) 17:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Mauvaises décisions

File:Xesko_-_Soul.jpg

File:Xesko_-_Soul.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.

The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.)

Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Afrikaans ∙ asturianu ∙ azərbaycanca ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ Lëtzebuergesch ∙ magyar ∙ Malti ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ тоҷикӣ ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ मराठी ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

Eusebius (talk) 14:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Excusez-moi, mais vous savez ce qu'est une oeuvre dérivée? Il me semble qui non, vous avez éliminé une œuvre originale. En art, quand un artiste fait une œuvre originale basée sur une autre, n'est pas une violation du droit d'auteur si vous ne savez pas sa, allez apprendre. Je vous demande de remplacer le fichier, parce que ce que vous avez fait est vandalisme. Zorglub (d) 18:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Bonjour. Merci de réviser votre droit de la propriété intellectuelle avant de venir m'agresser sur ma page personnelle. Un peu de lecture. --Eusebius (talk) 19:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Basically you think you are right, but you are completely wrong. Just go were [9] and read this section "Examples of derivative works under US law". And this work uses more than 2/3 of the canvas besides the copy of Guernica, so it's an original. If you don't know how to interpret the laws, you should not do this work. Zorglub (d) 13:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

If you think I have made a mistake in understanding the US copyright act, please either go to COM:UDEL to ask for undeletion, and/or to COM:AN to tell them how bad I am. To me it is definitely clear that your work is a DW of Guernica, no matter how much surface you have added to it. I won't change my mind, so it's useless to bother me here. And please use a signature that is not designed to prevent users from reaching your user/talk page. --Eusebius (talk) 14:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

IIAF

File:STAMP OF IMPERIAL IRANIAN AIR FORCE 50th ANNIVERSARY 1.jpg

Hi. I respond two of your requests. actually, I cant speak english better than it. so, first i must apologize and second please use simple words when audience me :). thank you.[10] & [11]

Gire 3pich2005 (talk) 21:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. The deletion requests I create are on my watchlist, so discussion can take place over there. However, if it seems that I have missed something and you want me to react, don't hesitate to leave a note here. --Eusebius (talk) 21:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Karamchedu

Could you please check this newly created user vs User:Puvvati, same image File:Samantha Prabhu.jpg as deleted File:Sdr 08.png and same area of contributions on en wiki --Justass (talk) 19:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed, clear case. I let you issue the blocks if necessary? --Eusebius (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Think it's done :) --Justass (talk) 19:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Understanding copyright

Hello, you have recently deleted my picture because of copyright violation. i do not understand about copyright rules. how can i follow these rules.??if i want to upload my own work with my digital camera,,for this work ,there is also copyright o something? thanks--Cute754 (talk) 00:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. If you take a picture yourself, you can upload it and choose the license, unless the subject of your photograph is itself copyrighted (for instance, if you take a picture of an album cover, of a magazine, of an existing photograph, a still from a movie, a screenshot from a videogame... it is likely to be a copyright violation, because it is a derivative work). For the full story about copyright and licences on Commons, see here. For a guide on what you can upload and what you can't, see here. Don't hesitate to ask questions. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 06:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

French coins

Hello! Those are two fotos of 20 franc coin I made myself wtih my camera. I do not understand why it is marked as copyright violation. There is no any copyright on coins in circulation. Viacheslav. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kolesnikovvl (talk • contribs) 09:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC) (UTC)

Hi. I'm sorry but all French currency (Francs notes and coins, and national side of French Euros) are copyrighted either to the Banque de France or to the Monnaie de Paris, and will be in the public domain only 70 years after the death of their designers. The fact that a coin or banknote is not in circulation does not affect its copyright. Therefore, your photographs are derivative works and not free of rights. As a side note, please sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~). Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 10:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Hanging_Flattened_Brass_Section.jpg

File:Hanging_Flattened_Brass_Section.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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

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

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

Eusebius (talk) 06:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Reusing an image

Hi there, I'd like permission to use your image in my forthcoming book "Design Essentials". Can you please let me know if this is possible? Thank you, Angie Taylor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.151.199 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC) (UTC)

Hi. Whatever image it is, yes, you can use it in your book as soon as you credit me ("Guillaume Piolle") as the photographer. I would appreciate a message or an e-mail telling me which image it is, and the details of the publication. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 20:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Quebec7440

Could you run a check vs User:Caro7440, same area of interests and surprisingly similar name --Justass (talk) 22:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I was sure I saw something similar more than above - User:Canada7440 and User:Canada1000--Justass (talk) 22:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

P.S.S and also inactive User:Caro100 [12]--Justass (talk) 00:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, sorry I don't have time right now. I suggest you ask Martin H. or Tiptoety. --Eusebius (talk) 06:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I know the case, that was the pre-olympia en:Canada image vandal. --Martin H. (talk) 12:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Done, all confirmed +1 more, sockpuppeteer indefblocked. --Martin H. (talk) 13:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --Eusebius (talk) 13:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Betiana Blum.JPG

No reason whatsoever to doubt uploader that this was before 1984. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

License if inapplicable is the source is not provided. Source is a compulsory information, in particular when the validity of the proposed license tag depends on it. Please allow me to direct you to COM:UDEL if you want to propose undeletion. --Eusebius (talk) 20:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

There was a clear source. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Identifying where the picture was taken from, not where it was first published, which is the key element here. COM:UDEL. --Eusebius (talk) 20:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

Hi thanks for your help. I made a mistake for Bernard Boutet de Monvel, an did not know for the logo. Thanks again for checking. --Guy Courtois (talk) 08:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Pas de problème. Je suis en train de jeter un coup d'oeil à vos autres images. --Eusebius (talk) 08:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair use

Well, my theory here is that if you photograph a pile of boxes (as opposed to scanning the cover of only a single box), then it doesn't have to be fair use, because a functional object (such as a packaging box) supposedly cannot be copyrighted. This topic also came up in relation to photos of computer motherboards (which have company logos on them of course), and the consensus appeared to be a photo of e.g. a motherboard, being an object with a logo on it, is OK for Commons, while e.g. a flatbed scan of only the company logo would not be OK.[13]

Perhaps someone else can comment on the distinction between 2-D scan and photo of 3-D object, as far as copyright is concerned? Should my interpretation turn out to be wrong the images could still be moved to WP-EN. Morn the Gorn (talk) 14:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. There's a pretty big difference between the motherboard and the covers I've deleted: the motherboard is only a technical design, and as such is not copyrightable, whereas the game covers consist in various artwork, all copyrightable and copyrighted. This picture therefore was a derivative work of copyrighted works (more detailed explanations in the link). This picture may or may not be acceptable under the English Wikipedia's fair use policy, do you need me to temporarily restore it, or do you still have your own copy? --Eusebius (talk) 14:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It would be useful to keep the image annotations somewhere, otherwise they would have to be redone for WP-EN... Morn the Gorn (talk) 15:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Temporarily undeleted, take what you need and tell me when it's ok. --Eusebius (talk) 15:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Got the info, thank you! Morn the Gorn (talk) 16:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

besoin d'aide

File:Régis faucon TF1.jpg

Bonjour. Vous m'avez envoyé des demandes de précisions sur des fichiers que j'ai importés ici mais je ne sais hélas pas du tout comment faire ça. Merci d'avance pour votre aide. Cordialement. --Herzog123 (talk) 18:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Bonjour. Le problème, d'une manière générale, c'est que (si je me souviens bien) vous déclarez être l'auteur de toutes ces images, et que j'en doute fort. Il faudrait donc produire la source de ces images (certaines ont été supprimées à vue parce qu'il était évident qu'elles avaient été collectées sur d'autres sites web) et déterminer ensuite si elles sont ou non libres de droits. À titre d'exemple, la photographie que j'inclus ici est, si je ne m'abuse, la reproduction d'un tirage en quadrichromie. D'où vient-elle ? De nombreuses images sont de taille étonnament petite, et au vu de ce que j'ai pu trouver dans vos contributions, je suspecte qu'elles ont été récupérées sur des sites web. Lesquels ? Si vous êtes réellement le photographe de certaines d'entre elles, ou de toutes, pourriez-vous montrer les fichiers originaux pour dissiper le doute ? --Eusebius (talk) 19:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Bonjour. En effet, toutes ces photos importées n'ont pas du tout été réalisées par moi. Les plus anciennes importées viennent de sites dont je vais donc essayer de retrouver les liens; un blason a été dessiné par moi; pour les deux dernières photos importées, j'ai le nom des photographes et je sais qu'elles sont libres de droits; mais où doit on indiquer ces informations? Merci encore. Cordialement. --Herzog123 (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Pour celles qui viennent de site, il y a 99% de chances qu'elles ne soient pas libres. Par défaut, n'importez pas de contenus provenant d'autres sites web, sauf s'il y a une mention claire d'une licence libre (et dans le doute, demandez). S'il y a un blason que vous avez réalisé et que j'ai taggé, mettez-moi un mot au niveau du message correspondant sur votre page de discussion, ou bien sur la page de discussion de l'image. Pour les photos dont vous connaissez les photographes, il faudrait soit que vous expliquiez pourquoi elles sont selon vous libres de droit (soit ici publiquement, soit si cela met en jeu des informations confidentielles, par e-mail à permissions-commons@wikimedia.org), soit que les photographes envoient une permission sous cette forme à permissions-commons@wikimedia.org.

Je vous suggère très fortement la lecture des pages suivantes : COM:L, COM:CB (il y a des versions françaises). --Eusebius (talk) 21:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

D'accord. j'ignorais tout ça. Tant pis donc si ces images sont effacées; elles sont intéressantes et je doute que quelqu'un demande leur suppression, mais si c'est le cas, cela n'est pas bien grave. Le blason est ici: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Blason_ordre_st_jean_de_dieu.jpg. Merci beaucoup en tout cas pour toutes vos informations. Cordialement. --Herzog123 (talk) 23:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

VIC

Bonjour Eusebius!
This closed nomination Commons:Valued_image_candidates/Orcas_at_Loro_Parque_08.JPG not removed from VIC several times.
Respectueusement, --George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Simple formatting problem. It should be ok now. If not, ping me again. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 19:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Panoramio account

Hi, I've received a notification saying that you have tagged two of my pictures. I've changed my Panoramio user name to D. Alexandru Ioan and I hope this will be enought to prove that I am the same person.

Regards, Despina Alexandru Ioan (talk) 18:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

image permissions in jose maldonado article

I had sent the author's permissions by e-mail to wikimedia for all the related images in the article just this morning. I think so that maybe the misunderstanding is because i confused the permission with the licenses.

Maybe you act so quick.

Anyway i understand the wiky policies and the idea was not to disturb the work inside the community.

Many thanks... i will try to edit articles kindly. --Limboboy (talk) 18:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that an e-mail had been sent. Issue is currently being dealt with on OTRS, that is via e-mail. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 19:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, please don't re-upload the images. They will be restored if the permissions are deemed satisfactory. --Eusebius (talk) 20:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I just resend to Guillaume Piolle by e-mail a short explanation and granted licenses and permissions for any kind of works by jose maldonado and collector or institutions related to the work of the author. All works by JM are every time under CC licenses by special contract with the works buyers or collector.

Many thanks Eusebius ... that's the way to keep fine the Wiki.

Let me know anything about articles introduced by myself for collaboration and discussion. --Limboboy (talk) 08:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I won't tell you anything about articles, I only work with media files, it's complicated enough for me! Wikipedia people will tell you if there's something they don't like in the articles, I guess...

Files still awaiting OTRS confirmation

Hello, Eusebius. The file(s) listed below have been marked with {{OTRS received}}, but there has been no complete confirmation of its permission status in the last 30 days. From what I'm able to tell, you were the person who added this template. Would you mind taking a look at this again? If confirmation cannot be found, this file should probably be marked for deletion. This should be the only notification you will receive regarding this image, so long as the comment I added to the image description page is not altered. Thanks! HersfoldOTRSBot^{(talk/opt out)} 22:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

If you are not an OTRS volunteer or did not add the "received" template to this file, it's possible I made a mistake identifying the correct user. I look for the most recent diff where the template was added, so if you reverted an edit where this template was removed, I can't tell the difference. If this is the case, please let my operator know at w:en:User talk:Hersfold. Sorry for the inconvenience!

The file(s) in question are:

Case

In this case it comes from a user already know for his reckless regarding licenses. -- Drini 15:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Eusebius,

I uploaded a file from flicker , plz see if I did everything all right--here's the link: File:Birds_over_Gateway_of_India.jpg

thanks--Royal Jat Warrior (talk) 15:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Everything looks ok on the "legal" point of view. The intrinsic educational value of the picture could be questionned though, but I guess you had something in mind when you uploaded it. I have adjusted categorization, because the image was over-categorized (have a look at the link). Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 15:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi this is the image uploaded by me on flicker under Creative commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic licence , I was wondering how to upload this file on wiki commons,,,as my own work....or as someone other's work from flicker???

thanks--Royal Jat Warrior (talk) 16:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you the subject of this image, or the photographer? --Eusebius (talk) 17:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

nither actually...what to do now?...Royal Jat Warrior (talk) 09:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Ask the photographer for a formal permission. Only the creator of a picture has the rights to release it under a free license (or any other license, actually). --Eusebius (talk) 17:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

argh

Hi. I seem to recall a discussion or something on Commons where you mentioned you doubted the veracity of an OTRS release on a file on the English Wikipedia. I listed the file for deletion on the English Wikipedia and it was deleted, only to be restored because the uploader was an admin. A search of Commons reveals a few dozen files from this source[14] all uploaded by the same admin at the English Wikipedia. I wish I could find the original discussion where you said you doubted this file but I can't. What do you recommend I do? Are you sure this is a forged OTRS permission? If it is, then all the files from this source on Commons must be deleted. And I am faced with how to delete files on Wikipedia if the uploader can just undelete them :) -Nard the Bard 21:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I think "argh" is a perfectly well chosen title. I confirm to you that ticket number 2009061010042882 contains a valid permission only for this picture, any other being currently unsufficient. However, this could be sorted out because the problem is only syntactic and the intention of the copyright holder to give permission is quite clear. I think the best thing to do, for now, is that I ask for a confirmation through OTRS, just to make the case clear. I hope I will get an answer and the status of these files can be cleared. I'll leave a note here when I have news. --Eusebius (talk) 17:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Even if it turns out nasty, note that all the Flickr-confirmed ones remain ok. --Eusebius (talk) 17:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that explains why you took no action at the time. I probably should have asked before nominating the file for deletion :) It's funny though, you could have 5 people mention they think a file is a copyvio on the Village Pump and NOBODY bothers to list it for deletion. So as a general rule I nominate files like this for deletion because nobody else does. Thanks for your reply. -Nard the Bard 17:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi again. Permission has been confirmed, but only for the files from the Flickr account. I have created {{Bret Newton permission}} for this. May I let you sort things out or do you need help? --Eusebius (talk) 07:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Martoys

File:Martoys911.jpg

Do we know for sure that use of the Martoys catalog was in copyright violation? How do we know for sure? Is it an assumption? Since Martoys survived only 2 years and then turned into Bburago do we assume that it is copyrighted and that the copyright is held by Bburago? I don't mind the deletion and understand, unless we are just guessing when it might be in the public domain. I do wonder though why the Martoys catalog shot was deleted so fast, while my PolistilAutobianchi box photo remains. Thanks and I'll be more careful in the future with pictures - though it is a temptation because the toys/collectibles are so diminished without their packaging. Also I wonder about the pictures where I have organized or arranged the cars 'outside' their packages but show both in the picture. Is this acceptable? --Cstevencampbell (talk) 05:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

There are several elements here:

I have deleted faster because you kept uploading problematic pictures, although you know the existing ones were probably to be deleted. I somehow expected you to wait for the conclusions of the deletion debate in order to know what is acceptable and what is not.
The catalogue bore a clear date (1975) with a photograph of a 3D object, which is copyrightable. Copyright will exist until at least 2025 (according to European directives) and most probably until 2045 (most EU countries have adopted a 70 year basis, but I'm not a specialist in Italian copyright law). In the absence of a clear release permission from the copyright holder, this is an obvious copyright violation, and therefore eligible for speedy deletion (as a side note, I think I could have speedily deleted the ones I have simply nominated for deletion). The fact that the company is defunct does not cancel copyright, it just makes it harder to track. It is possible that the copyright holders (Bburago, most probably) are not conscious of having rights over this picture, but they do and we care about it. What we are trying to build with Commons is not a repository of media that can be safely used, but a repository of media which are free of rights. It is quite different.
About the pictures of cars alone: I am less of an expert here. For me I don't see them as really problematic, or at least less than the designs and photographs on the boxes and magazine. Maybe some interesting comments will come from other users in the deletion request debate. --Eusebius (talk) 07:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, thanks for the direction. I will refrain from uploading overtly derivative photos. Please see my recent Auburn Rubber Company toys pics for examples. --Cstevencampbell (talk) 19:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

This file is missing evidence of permission.

Hi, I really hate Wikipedia. ha. I uploaded the pictures into wiki commons and now I didn't give "permission"? Is this not the box for "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license"? If not, can you give me detailed instructions on how to put permissions on my photos. Please do not delete them!! I get charged to upload and this would cause me problems. I will fix it if you tell me how. Or do I simply need to tell you that I am releasing them. If this is the case, can you please release the photos on the following links to "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license"? Thank you.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgnpp (talk • contribs) 11:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC) (UTC)

Hi. Maybe it can be solved very simply, at least for some of these files.

Most of these files all bear a watermark crediting "S. Reznichenko", this is why I tagged them as missing a permission. Are you S. Reznichenko?
File:Karkaraly National Park 9.jpg, on the other hand, is an older photograph. Who is the photographer?
File:Karkaraly Mural.jpg and File:Karkaraly Statue1.jpg are derivative works of a existing works, which are by default copyrighted. We need a formal permission from the original artists in order to keep this picture (or evidence that the existing works are in the public domain, but I doubt it). Are you in position to get that?
The files that I haven't tagged are ok already.

Also, pleas sign your messages with four tildes. --Eusebius (talk) 12:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for getting back.

Yes, I am S. Reznichenko. I am the wildlife biologist at Karkaraly National Nature Park. I put my name on these photos.
The older picture is property of the park, taken years ago and released to the park. I'm in charge of photographs in the park and therefore it is done under my name. The original author's name is not known.
I do not have permission from the original artists on the Karkaraly Mural and Karkaraly Statue1 files. They are on government buildings however. Does the {{PD-KZ-exempt}} copyright tag apply in this case? If not, I understand.

-kargnpp, (talk), 8:42am, March 16, 2010

Hi. OK, I will untag the pictures you have taken. Please note that versions without watermark are preferred, and that when it is possible we will remove watermarks from your pictures. For the older pictures, we will need a permission e-mail (coming from an "official" park address) to be sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, although I hardly see how you (the park) can be sure to be the copyright holders if you don't even know who took the picture. About the last two, I don't think the license tag applies, unless you assure me that the mural is characteristic of Kazakh folk art. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 06:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've seen statues on other wiki pages and I'm curious how they got around the statue thing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karaganda). When the places are promoted as tourist spots and its in the center of the city, you still need permission from the sculptor? The mural is absolutely Kazakh folk art from the Soviet time period. I think the old picture may be too much trouble, since the park is unsure of who the owner is (it was just given to the park and in the park archives)- could you remove it? And if you feel the statue picture won't work either, that one can go. I will find other pictures of the town and park to put on it. Thanks. -kgnpp, (talk), 3:46pm, March 17, 2010

OK, I'll take care of these files. About statues: works of art and modern building are often much trouble on a copyright point of view. In some countries you don't need a permission if the work is "permanently located in a public place" (Freedom of Panorama), but in many others there is either no such exemption at all, except for personal use, or the exemption is limited, for instance to non-commercial or educational use. COM:FOP summarizes what we do know about such copyright exemptions, country by country. This issue can be complex and frustrating. --Eusebius (talk) 09:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

http://bachverdiu.com/Documento%20Ilustre%20Instituto%20Veracruzano%20original.doc

File:Julio S Montero.jpg

La photographie est dans un livre publié par l'écrivain mexicain JOSE ONTIVEROS, dans une gazette le 31 Juillet 1945, commémorant le 75e anniversaire de la fondation, l'école "illustre Institut de Veracruz" Ce document a été restauré et numérisé en 2005 par ADOLFO CORREA DEL RIO, professeur au Collège Baccalauréat de Veracruz, et il se leva à l'Internet. Nous avons précisé que le fichier est mexicain. Veracruz est une ville et État (province) au Mexique, et l'article parle d'une école dans cette ville, qui en apprend plus d'un siècle. Et je suis fier diplômé de cette école, le calendrier un lien où j'ai téléchargé le document.

The photograph is in a book published by the Mexican writer Jose Ontiveros, in a Gazette on 31 July 1945, commemorating the 75th anniversary of the foundation, the school "ILUSTRE INSTITUTO DE VERACRUZ" This document was restored and digitized in 2005 by ADOLFO CORREA DEL RIO, professor, College of Bachelor of Veracruz, and he Upload the file to Internet.I I clarified that the file is Mexican. Veracruz is a City and State (Province) in MEXICO, and the article speaks of a school in that city, who teaches more than a century. And I'm proud graduate of that school, schedule a Link where I downloaded the document. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricargo (talk • contribs) 03:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC) (UTC)

I'm sorry that I made a mistake about the source country. However, Mexico copyright law is even more "severe": author must have died more than 100 years ago for the work to be in the public domain. Definitely unfree, then, sorry! --Eusebius (talk) 07:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Esteban Morales Born Dec 26, 1829, and Died April 8, 1908. The photo dates from before April 8, 1908. --Ricargo (talk) 21:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I copy your remark in the relevant discussion page. --Eusebius (talk) 21:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts

Thanks for the reply,

Maybe you're right, it is more b'cratic. I have been absent a couple of years and may not be up to date. I am also not an admin any more so I don't have than much saying :)

Here is how I am thinking:

Whenever something new is created, (1) users need to be informed (2) pages need to be created and translated (3) templates need to be created and translated (4) formulate pages and templates to make them both clear and friendly. (5) users still don't understand what happened.

But maybe it is not as complicated as I think?

(Please respond here)

Fred J (talk) 15:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, creating the template and the system is a bit bureaucratic and needs work (although the general workflow is already present for no source/no permission/no license tag, and its basic adaptation to OTRS template, for instance, was relatively easy), but the current statu quo is considered less acceptable everyday so maybe it's worth designing something else, provided it is well conceived. It's not the first time the issue arise at COM:AN. --Eusebius (talk) 15:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Notes

Bonjour. Admiratif devant votre vitrail de Saint-Martin de Tours, je me suis autorisé à traduire deux annotations, suivant la demande d'un des évaluateurs. J'espère ne pas m'être trompé. Félicitations.--Jebulon (talk) 22:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Merci bien, n'hésitez pas à traduire les autres :-) --Eusebius (talk) 06:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Images erased from Banco de Mexico arguying copyrights violation

Dear Eusebius:

You just erased several images from Banco de México. Let me say that you shall have consulted with me first.

I am Communications Manager of Banco de México. I would like to inform you that, given my official position at Banco de México, I have the right to use the images as I please and that it is in the best interest of the institution that I represent that those images be uplpoaded again.

I understand your concern for copyright. I will very much appreciate that you allow me undo your changes (if I can do it) and let the images to remain there.

Please fell free to e-mail me at avela@banxico.org.mx

Best regards, --170.70.19.61 20:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll reply by e-mail. --Eusebius (talk) 20:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Leonard_Nimoy.jpg

Hi, I have to say, this system is really confusing, especially for trying to add your own work. It seems like all of the instructions are geared toward getting permission from third parties. I read through many pages many times and think of myself as fairly intelligent, but I still couldn't make heads or tails of all this. Anyway, I have now sent an email for OTRS for File:Leonard_Nimoy.jpg. I'm assuming I leave the no_permission template in place? That seems to usually be the case in my related experiences, but I wouldn't want to leave it there if that is not the case here. Also, feel free to let me know if I appear to have done anything else incorrectly. Thanks. --Siradia (talk) 21:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Heh, never mind. I see you removed it while I was working on this and researching. --Siradia (talk) 21:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Requested explanations has been posted

Dear Eusebius:

In the following address you will find the answer to your concerns. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Seguridad100.jpg

Most sincerely, --170.70.19.61 17:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid the only way to solve the issue quickly is by sending a reply to my e-mail. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 20:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Notice on my talk page - File:Cyberdog_shop_-_2007.JPG

File:Cyberdog shop - 2007.JPG

Dear, picture you complain to me is not mine, but user Maxker uploaded it to en wiki. I didn't upload it to commons, but used Magnus Manske bot for it. Now you know, so please can you delete notice from my talk page and put it on the right place? Thanks in advance! --Roberta F. (talk) 11:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I know you're not the original uploader, such messages are added automatically. I have nominated the original for deletion on the English Wikipedia, so the uploader should be aware of the issue (he has been inactive for height months though). You can remove the notification from your talk page of course. --Eusebius (talk) 12:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Winter-by-Marsatac-2010.ogv

bonjour, pour résumer les droits sur ce fichier, il n'y a qu'une seule musique et des images prises lors du festival. Dans le contrat des artistes, il est spécifié que le festival peut utiliser les images et musiques pour la réalisation de mini-films. Cette clause figure dans le contrat des artistes qui précise aussi le cachet et le fait que ce document est confidentiel et donc il ne sortira pas du festival. Cette vidéo est aussi disponible sur le site www.marsatac.com. Le festival peut envoyer un email pour préciser la position (comment garantir l'authenticité de l'émetteur de l'email?). Sinon, destruction du fichier et tant pis pour wikimedia. cdlt, jmax (talk) 13:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Bonjour, de ce que vous me dites, je comprends que les organisateurs du festival ont obtenu certains droits sur la bande son (c'est la seule partie qui pose vraiment problème je crois), mais il me paraît moins évident que les droits obtenus couvrent le fait de re-publier l'enregistrement sous une licence libre, c'est-à-dire d'autoriser quiconque à utiliser l'enregistrement pour tous usages, y compris les usages commerciaux et les oeuvres dérivées (exemple : réutilisation de la bande son du concert par un autre artiste pour l'intégrer à son propre album, revente de la vidéo, etc). Néanmoins, il est possible que le contrat prévoie tout ça, je vous invite juste à le vérifier attentivement ! Si les organisateurs sont persuadés de détenir ces droits, ils peuvent juste envoyer un e-mail de permission comme je l'ai dit dans la discussion de suppression. Il n'y a pas besoin de rendre publics des contrats confidentiels, à partir du moment où nous pouvons enregistrer (selon nos procédures) une déclaration des organisateurs pouvant les engager en cas de problème. J'espère que notre point de vue est plus clair pour vous. Vous pouvez contribuer en français dans la discussion de suppression, si vous le souhaitez. --Eusebius (talk) 13:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

merci de la réponse et je comprends mieux le problème avec la bande son. Si je ne me trompe pas il y a dans les licences Creative Commons une licence permettant Paternité,Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale, Pas de Modification [15]. Est ce que cette licence est compatible avec wikimedia ? le 2e point intéressant est le mix entre image et son car on n'avait pas imaginé la possibilité de dissocier l'un de l'autre. On avait pensé le clip comme un ensemble global cédé à la communauté. Si la licence Paternité, pas d'utilisation commerciale, pas de modification est valable, cela empêche en théorie la dissociation ... quoiqu'il en soit, on va vérifier les contrats mais je doute qu'on ait ce degré de finessejmax (talk) 13:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

autre point qui mérite un autre item (je ferais une synthèse sur la page de discussion du fichier), est ce que le fait de voir quelques secondes des artistes sur scène (sous forme clip donc sans le son) nécessite leur autorisation ou celle du festival transmise à wikimedia ? jmax (talk) 13:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Re-bonjour. Les restrictions NC (non-commercial) et ND (no derivatives) ne sont pas acceptées sur Commons, car les licences résultantes ne sont pas "libres". La définition informelle d'une licence "libre" c'est la formulation que je vous ai donnée : autorisation donnée à quiconque d'utiliser le contenu pour tout usage, y compris commercial et oeuvres dérivées". Le fait d'expliquer ça aux gens, surtout aux représentants d'organisations, leur fait parfois réaliser que ce n'est pas du tout ça qu'ils désirent faire... Concernant l'apparition de personnes sur une photo ou une vidéo, ça ne pose pas de problème pour un événement public. D'une manière générale, sur le droit à l'image Commons sera beaucoup plus laxiste que la loi française, mais les détails sont ici : Commons:Photographs of identifiable people. --Eusebius (talk) 18:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

merci encore de cette réponse. Effectivement, il faut alors supprimer le fichier car sans aucun doute, les droits sur la musique d'accompagnement ne sont pas cédés. jmax (talk) 21:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

D'accord je supprime, merci du temps passé. --Eusebius (talk) 21:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Droits

File:Regis Faucon TF1.jpg

Bonjour. J'ai un mail indiquant qu'une de mes contributions est libre de droits. A qui faut il faire suivre ce mail ? Et comment? Merci. Cordialement. --Herzog123 (talk) 18:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Bonjour, merci de faire suivre le mail à permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, avec un lien vers le fichier en question. La personne qui prendra en charge le mail vous guidera au besoin. Merci également de mettre {{OTRS pending}} sur la page du fichier en question (s'il n'a pas été supprimé), histoire de montrer qu'un e-mail a été envoyé. --Eusebius (talk) 19:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

France euro coins

File:Francia 2009 uem.png

Are those copyrighted? Cant find anything in the casebook but as you stated here Commons:Deletion requests/File:2 euro coin Fr.jpg looks like yes. So maybe File:Francia 2009 uem.png, File:€2 commemorative coin France 2008.png, File:€2 Commemorative Coin France 2007 TOR.png, File:2euros degaulle.png needs attention --Justass (talk) 19:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I confirm that there is no copyright exemption for governmental works or works made by public agents in France, so standard copyright rules apply (although works made by individual public agents may require specific attention, but this is not the case here). I will have a look at the files, thanks. --Eusebius (talk) 19:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't nominate File:Francia 2009 uem.png because the design is identical in every country of the Euro zone, so I suppose applicable copyright rules are similar to the ones regarding the common side of Euro coins (considered as acceptable on Commons, alhough I haven't found anything similar to a free license or a PD release so far). --Eusebius (talk) 19:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I have found listed images by looking at the fr:Pièces_commémoratives_de_2_euros, but it seems Category:Euro coins (France) is full of "national side" coin images and maybe some uncategorized are out there as well --Justass (talk) 20:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I hate currency copyright. I'll list more coins in one of the DR I've open, because I also hate mass deletion requests. --Eusebius (talk) 20:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Stop tagging stuff

Please stop tagging files that are highly unlikely to be copyright violations. Make a regular DR if you must. But it would be better if youy concentrated on real copyright violations. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Please read COM:EI, COM:L#License_information and so on. --Eusebius (talk) 21:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, who made this window. To me it seems that the author inmformation is false. Shall I go tag it? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

And see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gratia-a-son-chevalet.JPG on why discussion was warranted. As to the orange adminition about civility and personal attacks, you may want to reformulate you comments here. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

No thank you, I don't want to reformulate my comment. --Eusebius (talk) 06:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I couldnt help to read some of the discussion and I thought I would give my opinion on tagging. I think that tagging is both good and bad.

It is good because it is easy, fast, informs uploader and once a file is tagged it end up in a category and a week after someone will look at it. So you can't forget it.
It is bad because it is (too) esay and sometimes it does not always inform uploader what is missing. Example if someone takes a picture of a statue and marks it own it it not sure that uploader understands that "source" is reffering to who made the statue etc. And some uses {{self|whatever license...}} to indicate own work. It is also bad because some admins deletes images without checking if something is really missing. It looks "ugly" on a user talkpage so some users get sad/mad if they get this notice (10 times). If uploader is not very active (s)he might not see it before image is deleted.

If information is really missing then I agree files could be tagged - especially if it is a recent upload. If "we" think information is wrong (example a photo from 189x marked "own") or that other than the uploader might be able to fix the problem I think a DR is better. A DR is often seen by several users and it makes it possible to state a better reason for why information on file is not good enough. --MGA73 (talk) 10:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

fake otrs?

File:Mehdi Karubi-campagne.jpg

Could you please check ticket #2009052910019017, looks like it covers only two images from the http://campaign88.ir/. But now User:Amir.Hossein.7055 is uploading images with this ticked and I would say they are just grabbed from the web --Justass (talk) 16:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't have access to this ticket! Another permission ticket which is not in the permission queue... I'll try to find someone with the rights. --Eusebius (talk) 17:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I got access. This permission ticket is currently considered valid for all pictures published here: http://picasaweb.google.com/mkcampaign88. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 17:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Scope

Hi Eusebius, I think mdale is doing tests for WMF. -- User:Docu at 10:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I've just recently realized that he was a developer. --Eusebius (talk) 11:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Aide technique au démarrage

Bonjour Eusebius, Pourrais-tu jeter un coup d'oeil à ce set promu, s'il te plait ? Nous essayons de nous partager le travail de fermeture des sets entre plusieurs contributeurs, mais pour ce set-là, il y a quelque chose qui coince dès le début, le lien rouge "red-link to Valued image set: <scope>" n'apparait pas et je ne vois pas où ça cloche. Mille mercis. --Myrabella (talk) 13:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

C'est à cause du lien dans le scope. Je me souviens plus exactement où il faut le modifier, je vais jeter un coup d'oeil. --Eusebius (talk) 15:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Voilà, il fallait rajouter un paramètre "titlescope" sans formatage, le lien rouge est là... --Eusebius (talk) 15:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Impec, merci ! Sans doute irons-nous un peu moins vite pour finir la clôture complète ;-) --Myrabella (talk) 16:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Vercors

Bonjour Eusebius, je me suis aussi posez la question et j'ai crée "Massif du Vercors" en rapport avec wikipédia. Car la page vercors est une page homonyme. [16]. Je voulais mettre au début "Vercors (Massif)" mais bon cela n'allais plus vraiment avec le me style d'écriture de l'article wikipédia.

a+

--Parisdreux (d) 18:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Heu... Certes, mais la Wikipédia francophone est, comme son nom l'indique, un projet francophone, ce qui n'est pas le cas de Commons... --Eusebius (talk) 19:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

A ton avis que faut t'il faire pour que soit soit bien compréhensible --Parisdreux (d) 18:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Rien, on n'a qu'à laisser comme ça. Sinon on aurait pu mettre "Vercors" et "Massif du Vercors" dans une seule catégorie, et faire que "Maquis in the Vercors" en soit une sous-catégorie. Mais c'est ok comme ça je suppose. --Eusebius (talk) 18:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Suppression de catégorie

Heu... tu m'expliques ?? --Eusebius (talk) 14:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Je me permets de restaurer et d'enrichir, à mon avis ça mérite largement une catégorie. --Eusebius (talk) 14:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

À mon avis, c'est redondant avec category:Coat of arms of Saint-Malo, mais si tu penses pouvoir enrichir, libre à toi… En tout cas, cette catégorie n’a certainement pas à être catégorisée directement sous category:Saint-Malo où on a déjà une surabondance de catégories de niveau n-1. Cdlt, Pymouss Let’s talk - 14:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Un coup d'oeil à l'état actuel de Semper fidelis devrait t'éclairer sur mon idée mieux que d'éventuels arguments. J'ai catégorisé dans un Symbols of Saint-Malo, en attendant des photos du drapeau de la ville, que j'ai dans un coin (mais pas terribles). --Eusebius (talk) 14:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

FOP France - I don't think I can, but just checking

Bonsoir Eusebius,

I am currently in Guadeloupe, overseas French department, where I presume COM:FOP#France prevails?

I have taken a photo of a shop, of a simple construction with white walls and light blue wooden framings. No big deal in itself I would say in relation to FOP, but maybe in the given context: It is a shop for clothes, but all the clothes sold and on display in front of the shop are in white and light blue colors matching exactly the colours of the building. The shop is named "Bleu Des iles" and there is clearly a "artistic" and deliberate aspect of the colours of the building and clothes being the same. The question is now: Does it mean I cannot license it freely and upload it to Commons? Another persons photo of the same building is available on flickr. Thanks in advance for your reply. --Slaunger (talk) 02:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Kim. Yes, as far as I know, French law fully applies in Guadeloupe. About the building, I don't know, I would say it is ok to relicense but it is only my opinion. Buildings are eligible to copyright only if they bear the mark of their author's personality, if one can distinguish them from other buildings of the same kind/function. I would say it is not the case here, the architecture does not look very "personal". Does the association between the clothes and the building make the appearance copyrightable? I truly think it would be pushing a bit too far, although I guess it could be pleaded. --Eusebius (talk) 05:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Eusebius,

Thank you for the reply. Well, I could upload it and open a DR on it, to remove any doubts or get a broader opinion. I think I will do that. --Slaunger (talk) 11:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

If you're really unsure, I think it would be better to discuss it on COM:AN before uploading, rather than nominating for deletion just after. Some people could get annoyed by the latter. --Eusebius (talk) 16:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I will try that. Thanks. --Slaunger (talk) 18:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair Use Material

Hi Eusebius

I need some suggestions to upload images that will be used on the Spanish Wikipedia. These are logos from political parties that are on public domain. In many cases, the political parties disappeared. So I don't know how I can upload images that have been created by me.

--Roreq (talk) 16:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. How do you know the images are in the public domain? By default these designs are copyrighted, even when their original owner has disappeared. Could you be more specific? You're talking about fair use, please also have a look at COM:FU about how/why it is not accepted here on Commons. --Eusebius (talk) 19:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Carmen de Rivera

Estimado amigo, Quisiera comentarle que ha quitado la foto de Carmen de Rivera, creo que por error, puesto que el webmaster donde se aloja la foto autorizó su publicación en Commons. Se escribió a OTRS con tal argumento. Saludos cordiales. espero sus noticias --Fujurcitook (talk) 18:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

This is why I asked you to put {{OTRS pending}} on the image page: to avoid deletion even when a permission e-mail has been sent. Image restored. --Eusebius (talk) 19:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

VICbot caprice?

Zarbi : [[17]]. La VIC venait d'être ajoutée, mais elle contenait déjà le message "Open for review. May be closed..." . Je te le signale en vitesse, je ferai un message en anglais sur la bonne page un peu plus tard. Bien à toi, --Myrabella (talk) 13:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

It was dated April 2009. Not bot's fault. --Ikar.us (talk) 13:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)¨

(edit conflict) Corrigé pendant que je regardais. --Eusebius (talk) 13:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, thank you both. --Myrabella (talk) 15:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Hasn't helped. I remember a discussion about the bot's too good memory. Trying a new subpage name. --Ikar.us (talk) 00:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

New subpage name hasn't helped. Can you give a hint what to do? --Ikar.us (talk) 12:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't. Maybe following the procedure in the first place would have avoided that. I'll ask Dschwen about it. --Eusebius (talk) 12:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Have created archive subpage, as requested in instructions. Waiting for the next run... --Ikar.us (talk) 14:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

That's not what I meant. I meant that the first renaming may have caused the problem. --Eusebius (talk) 14:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Despite these technical problems, the review is ongoing and I have proposed a MVR (I will set up if the present scope is kept) and/or a second nomination under a new scope. It wasn't to solve the tech problem, but perhaps it could relieve it! PS: Eusebius, was it the same problem with a rather recent re-nomination of a flying insect (if you remember)? --Myrabella (talk) 16:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea, I don't really remember. I'm afraid I'm rather useless here. --Eusebius (talk) 18:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It was that one. --Myrabella (talk) 13:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Image du jour mal légendée ?

Bonjour Eusebius, Il me semble que l'image du jour, détail du vitrail de Notre-Dame de la Belle Verrière de Chartres, est mal légendée. D'après ta propre image très bien documentée, il s'agit plutôt des Noces de Cana. --Myrabella (talk) 01:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Exact. Quel oeil ! --Eusebius (talk) 05:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Réutilisation de photo

Nous avons utilisé votre image de la rosace de la Cathédrale de Chartres pour illustrer la page de couverture d'un défi mathématiques proposé à des élèves de cours moyen 1ère année, en Eure-et-Loir (France). Thanks. Michèle Pomme et Françoise Mager-Maury (le 1er avril 2010)

Merci de l'info, ravi que vous ayiez trouvé la photo utile. Cordialement, --Eusebius (talk) 13:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

User:LittleLeo

Hello, could you please check User:LittleLeo vs User:Coldphay, same looking user page, same album covers, same contribution to pt wiki--Justass (talk) 15:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Certainly. Could you do me the favor or having a look at Commons:Deletion requests/File:21106ys1ed.jpg, and maybe speedy delete the files if you deem it appropriate? This user is really bothering me (Flickr washing, blatant bad faith, inconsistent lies) but I don't want to look too personal about it. --Eusebius (talk) 15:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The tools do not give much more information, but from his behaviour it's most likely him ([18] [19]). If you can block based on behaviour, please do... --Eusebius (talk) 15:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Was going to leave it unblocked, just keep an eye on it, but Polarlys did the job. As for the case of Racer009, it is so obvious Flickrwashing that I would just delete on sight --Justass (talk) 16:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I would have done that if I had a fresh eye I guess, but he puts great effort in building a horrible mess around his uploads. Keeping an eye on him. --Eusebius (talk) 16:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

File:УАЗ-31512.jpg

I revert your edit of this page. Uploader the author himself and his personal photo archives as a source of digital. This corresponds to the template {{Own}} in Source field. --Kaganer (talk) 08:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC) PS: Please do not bite the newcomers ;) --Kaganer (talk) 08:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, please don't revert (this one) again. This newcomer which I should not bite has uploaded at least one blatant copyright violation stated as coming "from his home archive", so I need at least a clear statement from him that he his the photographer. "Home archive" does not mean that at all. --Eusebius (talk) 08:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have seen . Not all at once understand that there can not upload everything. But in other cases, user has not declared that he was the author (see Author fields). Ok, let it once again confirms. --Kaganer (talk) 09:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't say he shouldn't upload. I say he should confirm that he is the photographer (and of course be cautious about his uploads and claims in a general fashion). He did claim to be the author of File:Su-25MS.jpg, which is the blatant copyright violation I was referring to. Hence the need for confirmation. --Eusebius (talk) 09:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, but please compare File:УАЗ-31512.jpg, File:ГАЗ-69А.jpeg and File:Дача2008 002.jpg. All three file have big size, these same camera model OLYMPUS FE170,X760, informally (not staging) background. On File:Дача2008 002.jpg - these same car, who on File:УАЗ-31512.jpg, but still without a number (with transit label). None of these three pictures is not found in the internet. Based on this, I think that these photos have a high probability belong to uploader. --Kaganer (talk) 14:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, probably. But please understand me: as an admin on this project I would really like to see that this user has understood the true meaning of "own work" and the fact that "home archive" is totally unrelated to copyright. But I grant you that on the basis of his other uploads it is obviously own work. Removing the pb tag, closing the issue. --Eusebius (talk) 14:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I am trying to contact this user about this issues (via user talk & wiki-mail). Thank you for your understanding ;) Thank you for all ;) --Kaganer (talk) 22:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Files

Hello, I see you left me several messeges in my discussion page.. Are you going to delete all my images?.. There are all from MY web site (gymnastucuman.com.ar), which has a Attribution-Non-Commercial 2.5 Argentina Creative Commons license and most of them created by anonimous authors. Anothers are the logos of schools from my city. There are also images created by ME. They all have the appropiate license. Please answer before the files are deleted. It took me a lot of work to upload all of them, they are important for the articles in which i helped. Thanks Gsobrevilla (talk) 00:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Several things here:

Non-commercial restrictions are not accepted on Commons, see here for details.
You cannot relicense files of which you are not the copyright holder, like anonymous files and in general files that you have not created (such as the logo of institutions that you do not officially represent). For such files we need a formal authorization from their copyright holders. Please precise, for each image, who the photographer or creator is, so that we can discuss copyright status.
Please do not remove problem tags. --Eusebius (talk) 05:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Egbert_van_der_Poel_-_Marine,_effet_de_lune.jpg

File:Egbert_van_der_Poel_-_Marine,_effet_de_lune.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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

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

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

Eusebius (talk) 13:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

2 VI pour le même domaine (dont une devrait être "demoted")

Bonjour Eusebius, Je suis tout à fait désolée de te déranger à nouveau pour des histoires de VIC et de MVR, veuilles bien m'en excuser. Voilà le problème : une ancienne VI a été placée en MVR par son propre nominateur qui en a produit une version plus satisfaisante. La nouvelle version est devenue la nouvelle VI. Problème(s) : la renomination n'a pas été faite comme il le faudrait, et la clôture non plus. Du coup, nous nous retrouvons avec 2 VI pour le même domaine : l'ancienne qui a gardé son label, et la nouvelle. Voici aussi le passage de VICBot. Pouvons-nous de nouveau faire appel à toi, ou préfères-tu que je poste un message sur la PDD des VIC en espérant que quelqu'un poura s'en occuper ? --Myrabella (talk) 12:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Salut. Non, autant que tu postes ici en cas de problème, j'ai peur d'être la personne le plus au courant de tout ce qui a été bricolé dans la para-automatisation du processus des VI... Je vais jeter un coup d'oeil. --Eusebius (talk) 12:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

[20] [21] [22]. Sinon, une petite blague sur la "valeur ajoutée" de la nouvelle VI : voir ma remarque à la fin. --Eusebius (talk) 13:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Merci de ton intervention rapide. De mon côté, j'ai ajouté le décompte des votes "style MVR" dans les 2 pages de revue. Quant à ta blagounette... "Not arbitrary derivative works", hum hum... Nous aurions peut-être dû garder la "demoted" comme VI, du coup, par mesure de précaution ;-) --Myrabella (talk) 21:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Bah, c'est un sujet récurrent. C'est peut-être la quatrième ou cinquième fois que ce template (ou un équivalent) est proposé à la suppression. --Eusebius (talk) 21:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Photographie_des_membres_du_groupe_Cobra.jpg

Please, trash this file. I am not the owner. as regards, --prosopee (talk) 21:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, done. --Eusebius (talk) 20:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Y aurait t-il tour et tour ?

Bonjour, J'ai vu que vous avez placé, en autres, des messages de suppression de fichier pour une vue aérienne de la tour Perret à Grenoble, du stade des Alpes ...

Très bien , soit, mais que pensez-vous des photos dans cette catégorie ? Category:Tours de Lyon

A+ Milky (talk) 09:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Bonjour. Les mêmes raisonnements peuvent être appliqués pour peu que le bâtiment soit éligible au droit d'auteur (= qu'il soit suffisamment original, en gros). On peut avoir l'impression qu'il y a deux poids et deux mesures le jour où ses photos sont supprimées, mais c'est juste qu'il y a une grosse quantité de photos sur Commons qui ne sont pas vraiment libres, entre autres pour ces raisons (qui ne sont pas toujours intuitives). En gros, on fait ce qu'on peut. Si je me souviens bien, j'avais juste nominé à la suppression celles des photos grenobloises qui apparaissaient sur certains articles Wikipédia : il vaut mieux éviter de faire la promo de fichiers problématiques. Mais je pourrais passer mon temps à supprimer des photos de bâtiments français. Sentez-vous libre de proposer à la suppression lorsque vous estimez que c'est nécessaire... --Eusebius (talk) 20:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Esquema evp.png

Salut de l'OTRS hispanophone! Je suis en train d'essayer d'attaquer à la queue de permissions en langue espagnole, qui présente un "backlog" de presque six mois actuellement. Tu as supprimé un fichier File:Esquema evp.png pour faute de permission. L'auteur de ce fichier nous a fait parvenir un cession à la domaine publique (novembre dernier) sous {{PD-self}} par le ticket #2009111610060663. Pourrais-tu rétablir le fichier avec ces détails? Merci d'avance Physchim62 (talk) 10:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Done, je te laisse rajouter le template OTRS et les infos nécessaires. --Eusebius (talk) 12:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Petit service

Bonjour,

pourriez-vous m'aider en rebaptisant certaines photos ? En effet, je suis un imbécile et j'ai fait quelques erreurs au moment de l'upload.

File:Forrest_Whitaker_2010.jpg. C'est "Forest" et non pas "Forrest".
File:Jérémie_Rénier.jpg Le nom de famille s'écrit "Renier" et non pas "Rénier"
File:Bruno_Salomone_2009.jpg La grosse gaffe, car je me suis tout simplement... trompé de personne ! Il ne s'agit pas de Bruno Salomone mais de Vincent Elbaz (qui selon moi ressemble à Salomone depuis qu'il a un peu forci). Tant mieux en un sens, car il n'y avait pas encore de photo de Vincent Elbaz. J'avais déjà fait une gaffe comparable avec Julian Sands, que j'avais confondu avec Guillaume Depardieu.

Merci d'avance pour les corrections. cordialement, JJ Georges (talk) 09:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Bonjour. Honnêtement, je ne suis pas tout-à-fait à l'aise avec les renommages et je ne voudrais pas faire de bêtises. Je vais me contenter de demander le renommage "normalement", et un admin plus habitué que moi fera la manip. Cordialement, --Eusebius (talk) 09:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, merci de réparer mes bêtises, et pardon pour le dérangement. cordialement JJ Georges (talk) 10:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Luis Daniel Garcia.jpg

Why would you like to erase the image?. The license is "Some rights reserved" and it is allow for Wikipedia.--Edwod2001 (talk) 15:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'll explain more precisely in the DR page. --Eusebius (talk) 15:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Antara-2009

A user, User:Antara-2009, you have previously blocked for uploading copyrighted material appears to be at it again:

--JD554 (talk) 14:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll have a look at it, thanks. --Eusebius (talk) 15:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

English

You say,

"My English is far from perfect, and not self-improving. If you're a native speaker, any comment made in private about the mistakes I make will be appreciated."

I should start by saying that I've read a lot of your comments and haven't noticed anything, but in this polyglot place even those of us who are occasionally paid for writing English often don't bother to fix minor errors. In glancing over your talk pages before writing this, I noticed a few minor things which certainly don't affect readability. Some of our colleagues who are native speakers don't do as well.

But, if you're serious about wanting the occasional comment, where do you mean by "in private"? I don't see e-mail on User:Eusebius. And, only if you'll help occasionally when I need French -- I claim fr-1, but that was à l'université, il y a quarante ans.

BTW, I really like -- perfect composition, lighting, and very serene...

And, finally, on User:Eusebius/World.

I was fascinated to see, I think for the first time, . I can't find a good explanation of why the designer used the general layout of the Stars and Stripes (I looked only at Flags of the World, which is usually pretty good.) Do you know anything more?
Hours in the USA on your way to/from Guatemala?
It's easier if you just specify the heights rather than the widths, using x30px in place of 45px, 42px, etc.

Regards, . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 00:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi James, thanks for your many comments.

About English and private messaging: there should be an e-mail link on my Commons user page (left panel on Monobook), and probably on other projects as well. Feel free to use it. Yet you can also make your remarks here in the public space, it's just that criticism is always easier to handle in private :-) Also, please don't refrain from making even minor comments about my English. Writing English properly is an important skill for my job and I often get criticized in a professional context (and at least once on Commons, behind my back -- nice and appreciated, as you may guess).
About Eilean Donan castle: it's a beautiful picture indeed, but I have no merit, the site does the job for you. The composition is already there (from every angle!), you just have to take the picture. And where you're there, you just can't stop shooting.
About the Breton flag: certainly the American flag was an inspiration, although I've never thought of it that way. If I remember well the flag was made in the 20s or 30s, and supported by the Breton independentists (now the flag is uncontroversial and even official in some contexts). Maybe the fact that some people then felt as a French colony seeking autonomy make them look toward the Stars and Stripes. The top-left corner is the coat of arms of the kingdom and then of the duchy of Brittany (d'hermine plain, with an unfixed number of item), so it's not a direct reference to the Stars. The nine stripes were added when the modern flag was created, they represent the nine historical bishoprics of Brittany: five white stripes for the five French-speaking (or rather Gallo-speaking) bishoprics, four black stripes for the four Breton-speaking bishoprics. It is sometimes said that it is the only flag with only black and white (its name, Gwenn ha Du, means "white and black"), but you can learn from the WP article that it is an urban legend. Some independentists could say it is the only national flag with only black and white, but then the nationalists from Corsica may want to reply... Maybe it could be said of the banner of Brittany when it was still an independent country.
"Hours in the USA on your way to/from Guatemala?" Exactly.
heights instead of widths: oh, thank you. I should probably know that, but I'm definitely not a Mediawiki geek.

Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 05:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

OTRS query

File:AAR P002.jpg

Hi - just wandering about with the broom again :) I came across this image which says it has OTRS but lacks any number? Only bugging you because the uploader appeared to have contacted you in Jan - I have a feeling their uploads may be rather suspect. Regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Herby. I remember this user. Some of the files he uploaded, copyrighted to Asymptote Architecture PLLC, actually got valid permissions (example), but they did not cover future uploads. The user should be asked to provide new permission, and possibly to make it wider, covering his future uploads. At first sight there is not pending e-mail for this picture (instead of sending one e-mail for each picture). Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 16:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - it just looks to me as though they may think that putting the OTRS on there without any reference number might stop deletion - or maybe I'm suspicious. I'll look some more - thanks & regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Monet - Étretat, la Porte d'Aval.jpg

Bonjour. Je ne comprends pas pourquoi vous avez supprimé la catégorie Cliffs in Normandy de ce fichier. Cordialement. Palamède (talk) 08:36, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Bonjour, c'est ce qu'on appelle la surcatégorisation : il ne faut pas catégoriser une image (ou une catégorie) dans une catégorie plus générale que celle dans laquelle elle est déjà (explications ici). En bref, on utilise toujours les catégories les plus spécifiques. Dans le cas qui nous intéresse, l'image est catégorisée dans Porte d'Aval, elle-même dans Natural arches in Étretat, qui est dans Cliffs in Normandy. Donc en fait, l'image était déjà dans la catégorie que vous souhaitiez rajouter, et pour des raisons d'organisations on la laisse dans la sous-catégorie la plus spécifique. Cordialement, --Eusebius (talk) 08:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Bonjour. Merci de l'explication. Cordialement.Palamède (talk) 19:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Anjar

Bonjour Eusebius, Juste une petite question pour préciser la légende de ton image, que j'ai insérée dans l'article de la fr:WP : la vue est-elle prise du petit ou du grand palais ? (les deux sont mentionnés dans l'article.) @+, --Myrabella (talk) 13:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

J'avais pas vu qu'il y en avait deux (j'écoutais pas toujours le guide, j'étais occupé à prendre des photos)... Après vérification, la photo est bien prise du grand palais ! --Eusebius (talk) 14:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Je te comprends :-) Précision apportée, plus insertion de deux de tes images dans l'article de la en:WP. PS "Great Palace" semble usité en anglais, j'ai trouvé des échos dans Google dont celui-ci. --Myrabella (talk) 13:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Cathédrales

Je ne comprends très bien l'anglais, donc je viens te répondre en français, bien que celle-ci ne soit pas ma langue maternelle. Je ne comprends pas l'over-categorizing. Mon travail était finalisé (?!) à avoir une catégorie avec la liste alphabétique des cathédrales d'Espagne ou de France ou d'ailleurs telle qu'on la trouve pour l'Italie (voir ici). Ainsi on peut avoir directement la liste complète alphabétique des cathédrals de tel ou tel Pays. Je ne vois pas des problèmes que la Category:Cathedral of Burgos soit en même temps en Category:Gothic cathedrals in Spain et en Category:Cathedrals in Spain. --Croberto68 (talk) 07:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Bonjour. C'est tout simplement une règle sur Commons (et sur les autres projets de la fondation Wikimedia) : un élément ne doit être catégorisé que dans les catégories les plus spécifiques (sauf rares exceptions). La règle est expliquée en anglais, en français et en espagnol (entre autres). Je comprends que d'autres systèmes de classement puissent vous convenir à vous, mais vous devez comprendre que c'est une politique globale qui a été définie et que vous ne pouvez pas de votre propre chef décider de nouvelles règles.

La catégorie des cathédrales italiennes ne respecte pas du tout les règles de catégorisation ni de nommage et doit être complètement revue.

Pour information, il y a des projets pour établir des systèmes de catégorisation par "tags" qui correspondent mieux à ce que vous désirez, mais ils ne seront pas mis en oeuvre sans des modifications sérieuses du logiciel Mediawiki.

Cordialement, --Eusebius (talk) 07:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Le saviez-vous ?

Salut Eusebius, C'est marrant, grâce à une VIC, j'ai appris au passage que "c'est Eusèbe, évêque de Césarée, qui mentionne pour la première fois, vers 330, Gethsémani comme un lieu « contre le mont des Oliviers »". Bon, c'était ma minute culturelle ! Bonne journée, --Myrabella (talk) 06:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Je m'endormirai moins bête ! Je connaissais Eusèbe de Césarée mais pas le détail de son oeuvre. --Eusebius (talk) 07:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Fiat

Fiat is a brand. Fiat Group, or Fiat S.p.A. is the holding who owns Chrysler LLC. --SurfAst (talk) 10:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you're probably right after all, I'll help you reorganize the stuff. --Eusebius (talk) 10:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Patras cathedral - central dome.jpg

We would like to use your photo (Patras cathedral - central dome.jpg)for communion. Dorothy Holland 050510 96.241.163.182

Hi, feel free to do so! If you republish the picture, be sure to credit me as the author. Best regards, --Eusebius (talk) 12:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Takiyya Mosque

Salut, pour la photo de la mosquée la longueur focale utilisée était de 5.0mm. C'est l'appareil (Sony DSC-HX1) qui l'a déterminée de façon automatique. Très beau pays la Syrie, beaucoup plus que la plupart des gens le pense. --Bgag (talk) 02:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah oui, même avec un facteur de crop assez élevé c'est beaucoup plus court que mon 18mm x 1.6... Donc des fois, c'est les bridges qui sont avantagés :-) Oui, j'ai beaucoup aimé le pays aussi, et mon appareil photo également ! --Eusebius (talk) 05:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Avis

Bonjour, j'ai quelques doutes sur les téléversements d'un ami contributeur : User:Jigsaww, notamment sur les licences concernant des reproductions de tableaux. Il a par ailleurs téléversé des pièces de sa collection personnelle mais je pense que les fichiers correspondants sont mal tagés. Pouvez-vous jeter un rapide coup d'oeil de contrôle? Merci d'avance, --prosopee (talk) 06:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Bonjour, j'irai jeter un coup d'oeil dans la journée, merci. Cordialement, --Eusebius (talk) 07:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Les fichiers ne sont pas toujours très bien documentés mais qu'est-ce qui vous pose problème exactement ? --Eusebius (talk) 07:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Rien en fait je voulais juste votre avis sur les licences, mais je suis rassuré! merci encore, --prosopee (talk) 06:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

File:IPhone 3G Jailbroken.jpg

Please, tell me, if possible, wchich elements of interface image are unfree. I will cover them up. PawełMM (talk) 15:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi. About everything. The background image and the icons are by default unfree (the unmodified Apple icons are definitely copyrighted), unless they can be shown to come from a free-licensed OS or to be freely licensed in some way, in which case the license should be provided because it has an impact on how you are allowed to relicense the final photograph. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 16:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Your close

" Done Used in a Wikipedia article, therefore in scope according to the relevant local policy. --Eusebius (talk) 21:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)"

This contradicts policy: This spells out what "in use" is not. It also states that duplicates and the rest are not acceptable. If you looked at the page there are two images depicting the same exact thing. There is no ability to claim that such duplications are acceptable within our scope or falls under the argument "in use". To the opposite: "does not mean that we should keep all blurred photographs", "does not mean that we should keep all photographs of unknown people", and "does not mean that we should keep all pornographic image". Ottava Rima (talk) 22:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, these images were added [23] by a user with few edits and just last month. As soon as they added the pictures they left. That is not appropriate to declare "in use". Ottava Rima (talk) 22:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi. You've deliberately misreading this paragraph of the policy, omitting the words you don't want to see. Please stop. And please stop systematically harassing the admins doing their job. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 05:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Eusebius, if you want to make those claims then it is clear you are misreading policy. The section even states very clearly "File not legitimately in use". There is no way you can possibly misconstrue it. Follow the policy. If you aren't doing what I say above, then you are acting abusively, and there is no "harassing" of admins who are abusive. You do not have the right to systematically reinterpret the policy exactly opposite of what it says. It is very clear, we do not host all of the images: "but there is no purpose in our hosting tens or even hundreds of essentially identical poor quality images that have no realistic educational value." That sets a very low cap on how many images of the same thing we can have. Follow the policy. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, you do misread the policy. The last two paragraphs of the section refer to pictures not in use (the first bullet point). The second bullet point says "legitimately in use as discussed above", and this "above" is the "File in use in another Wikimedia project" section, which is very clear. However, it has been noted that the current phrasing has led to a misunderstanding and something will probably be done to clarify the situation. In the meantime, it would be really nice if you could accept your misinterpretation, pointed out by many experienced volunteers, instead of repeating it as if it could become magically true. Should you have more experience with Commons and its relationships with the other projects, it would be obvious to you that Commons would always avoid interfering with the editorial choices of the sister projects. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 14:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but the section is "not legitimately in use" implying that merely appearing on a page is not enough. The policy is when things aren't "in use". Please do not take one line and allow it to justify you ignoring standard grammar and English. Now, Eusebius, there have been many statements like the "but there is no purpose in our hosting tens or even hundreds of essentially identical poor quality images that have no realistic educational value" that you can't twist that makes it very clear your stance is wrong. Furthermore, there are hundreds of images that are only used on a user's commons page, so if you did have the stance you are claiming above (i.e. it must be used) you would be following it there: User:Max Rebo Band is a gallery of over 600 images with over 90% of them only used on his page. If you honestly believe what you state, then you would be over there cleaning them up. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and, by the way, the commons delinker bot was created to "interfere with the editorial choices of sister projects". Commons has very strong inclusion standards and they do not disappear because someone on a tiny project may abuse the system or not follow standards. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

About the policy: I'm not going to teach you how to read, so this discussion is over.

About Max Rebo Band: feel free to nominate for deletion, seriously, I'd be very pleased.

About CommonsDelinker: this bot makes no decisions, it is a bot. It propagates consequences of decisions made on Commons. In normal times, or "ideally", those are made according to the policies, which are written not to interfere with the editorial choices of the projects (except for our stricter vision of copyright issues of course). --Eusebius (talk) 14:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The foundation knows my credentials in Literature with multiple degrees, plus I have produced far more content than you verifying that I know more about analysis than you. I have also ran discussions on admin ethics and policy. If you want to make personal attacks and be snide, it is obvious that you are still wrong and are looking even worse. The language, based on standard English grammar, is against you in every possible step. Then there is the matter of hypocrisy where you refuse to follow your own (wrong) interpretation, suggesting that you don't even stand by that part since you aren't nominating the pages yourself (and I am already dealing with many of them which is obvious from looking at my contribs). If you continue to use admin ops to further a blatantly wrong understanding of policy, then it will be dealt with. There is nothing stating anything close to "interfering with editorial choices of the projects", so falling back on something patently made up and not applicable is very troubling to say the least. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Another list of clear out of scope images that are not in use anywhere. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Sport et photographie

Si je te suis bien tu suggère de scinder le scope Angelo Raffaele (Venice) en Angelo Raffaele (Venice) exerior et Angelo Raffaele (Venice) interior. L’affaire est délicate car comme tu le sais il est interdit de faire des photos dans les églises en Italie, et surtout à Venise. Hier je me suis fais expulsé de 4 d’entre elles. Note que c’est toujours avec plaisir que je vais voler ces photos et que c’est le seul sport que je pratique. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah j'ignorais ça, tu fais bien de me prévenir, mon prochain trip photo est en Italie... On peut faire un seul scope alors, sans le "(exterior)". Ma proposition n'était pas de scinder, mais de reformuler la scission, le "facade" constituant déjà un sous-scope. Je cherchais juste à homogénéiser. --Eusebius (talk) 07:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Je croyais l'avoir mis... en subscope. Comment dois-je le mettre? --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Décidément nous voguons d'incompréhension en quiproquo. Je voudrais virer "facade" parce que je pense que ça n'a rien à faire dans le scope : le scope devrait être le bâtiment, avec un subscope (interior) ou (exterior). --Eusebius (talk) 19:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

J'ai enfin compris : l'air de la lagune m'embrume les neurones...--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

On y arrive :-) --Eusebius (talk) 07:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Katrin Sakharova

File:Men A.V. Chernogolovka 1986.jpg

Hello, I noticed you nominated more files uploaded by this user. In case you didn't noticed I added all files to the initial request you filled yesterday Commons:Deletion requests/File:Men A.V. Chernogolovka 1986.jpg as it's clear misuse of {{PD-Russia-2008}} -Justass (talk) 20:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have seen the list, that's why I didn't nominate all this user's uploads. I have left a notice on his user page, I have speedy deleted the latest upload and I'll be watching his future uploads. --Eusebius (talk) 20:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Dijon - tour de Philippe le Bon - gargouille.jpg

Hello,

my name is Marcin Malicki and I work for a Polish children publisher Book House Inc. (www.bookhouse.com.pl) We would like to use your very nice picture "Dijon - tour de Philippe le Bon - gargouille" in the book "How to become a discoverer". Of course will credit you and put the information about Creative Commons license in the book. If you have any comments or objections please contact me on email.

Best regards

Marcin Malicki

I reply by e-mail. --Eusebius (talk) 12:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism warning

Users have the right to remove sections from their own talk pages. Restoring sections on a user's talk page without permission is vandalism and not acceptable practice on any WMF project. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

If you think my actions are against the policy, please request that they be examined. --Eusebius (talk) 14:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

user:civertan

Hello. I quote a mail which I suggested user:civertan to send to permissions. I wonder what really people want apart from the permission from the company owner, which has been given and provided since 2006. I would suggest you to check their userpage, but fellow editors have deleted it (several times as far as I can see) because they thought a company couldn't possibly contribute to the project, and thus their userpage must be spam. (Obviously "contribution of this user" menu entry wasn't visible in their interface.)

Obviously I have the email from the company owner acknowledging the license of the material they upload. As well as the email asking what the hell should they do, how to prove that they have the right to release their images whatever they like. (Maybe a sample permission text would help. Until then... here you are.)

e-mail removed

No offense, you just happened to be the latest in the line. :-) --grin ✎ 16:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh by the way congrats to all people ignoring the explicite request at Template talk:Civertan license. Would've prevented lot of frustration. --grin ✎ 16:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'm very tired so please forgive me if I'm a bit abrupt. Media uploaded in the name of an organization require a formal permission e-mail from this organization, and such permissions have been requested many times. And the charge of proof is on the uploader, not on the rest of the world. The older messages on the user's talk page may not be self-explanatory, but the "missing permission" messages issued during the last year are pretty clear about the procedures. And they are autotranslated in Magyar. My personalized messages include even further directives (in English), and yet I don't have knowledge of any e-mail sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Or at least I couldn't (and still can't) find any in the OTRS system.

As I have said on Civertan's talk page, Template:Civertan license is a claim that must be backed by an e-mail from the organization. So far, nothing (instead, I see you've deleted missing permission templates from image pages in the absence of an OTRS ticket, which is usually considered vandalism), so please don't come on my talk page telling me we've been harrassing this user/organization, leading them to leave the project: they have done nothing to comply with the project regulations, as requested for a long time now, and I'm surprised the account never got blocked.

How to solve this? As I said. By having Civertan Grafikai Stúdió send us a permission for the pictures, or a statement that the user account is always acting on their behalf. If this e-mail is sent in English you can ping me when it is sent and I'll be able to process it quickly. It would be a good idea (to send it in English), especially if the e-mail is about linking the account to the organization rather than providing a permission for the images, because not all OTRS agents are willing to do that (and of course we don't have many OTRS people speaking Magyar). Really, this could have been done simply, quickly and painfully a year ago (for instance).

Side note: do you honestly expect admins to go look at the talk page of a user-defined template?? --Eusebius (talk) 18:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Bonjour.

Their email permission predates OTRS. At least my original (Hungarian) permission email is dated 2006-05-03, which was signed by the same person. I guess the civertan license template might have similar date. It was me who verified their claim [= "they have sent us an email"], and agreed on CC-BY-SA (back then, as you may possibly remember, most pictures were under GFDL). You see that your accusations are without merit. (And no offense taken, I have realised it's not worth it anyway. Apologies for my anger.)

Nevertheless to make our work smooth I resent the latest email which clearly states that they are themselves, and they own the copyrights of their own images to permission@.

As of sidenote: yes. I expect responsibility when doing possibly irreparable harm. You might not have realised but unexplainable deletions (and most deletions on commons are unfortunately unexplainable to newbies in my experience) drive away contributors. And right now we talk about a company with aerial photography possibility. I don't know how many of those release images under free license, but I know none others personally. (And it takes up quite lot of time to try to convince them not to leave the projects forever.) --grin ✎ 20:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Trying to read your mind is not "responsibility". Your message is hidden in the middle of nowhere, there is no sign of any permission e-mail (OTRS or not) in the text of the template, the user is unresponsive to the requests for permissions and yet keeps uploading, and we're supposed to imagine that an e-mail has existed that an admin on another project or an OTRS agent has it somewhere on its own machine? I'm always glad to help and make efforts, but I'm really tired of being criticized for doing my job. Yes, pointing out images uploaded out of permission, flagging them and deleting them when the uploader doesn't care about it is part of my job. Yes, passing as a badass is somehow part of my job too, today I'm just tired of it. --Eusebius (talk) 20:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

OTRS#2010051210043699 --grin ✎ 20:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I know, I had seen that, thank you. --Eusebius (talk) 20:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Merci beaucoup. And I'd send you a swedish almond-chocolate cake for relaxation but the holes on my ethernet are way too small for that. And I acknowledge that it's not an easy way to do this. Happy end, next please. :-) --grin ✎ 21:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm really sorry for being rude and aggressive. This was not a very good day for me on Commons. --Eusebius (talk) 21:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Voyage en Italie

Merci pour ton vote et ta patience. Où vas-tu en Italie. D’une façon générale la profondeur de champ est une catastrophe souvent les monuments sont dans des rues très étroite. Dans les églises tu n’as surtout par droit au flash ni à l’erreur dés que tu serras repéré tu devras sortir. J’ai essayé cette année un 20mm à F1.8 mais l’an prochain je descendrai à un 16mm, car certaines façades ne rentrent pas dans le champ. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 21:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Salut. Ce sera Florence début juillet, mais pour un séjour très court et sans trépied (le flash de toute manière j'aime pas trop), je ne sais pas si j'aurai beaucoup d'opportunités. Et le plus court que j'ai c'est un 18-55 de pas très bonne qualité (eq. 28mm en full frame). On verra ce que ça donnera ! --Eusebius (talk) 21:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Please check

Hi!

Commons:Requests_for_checkuser/IP_vandalism/ --Quahadi Añtó 08:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

We'll have a look at it, thanks. --Eusebius (talk) 09:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Mong.jpg

I think you are so bored in your real life, im trying to do a test of an article. Dont touch my picture please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damienhirst (talk • contribs) 15:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC) (UTC)

This is not a test wiki, this is a running project with real legal implications. You can totally perform tests in the sandbox or within your user space, but not by uploading test pictures. Files can be uploaded only if they are free of rights and within the scope of the project. --Eusebius (talk) 18:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Images from Iran

Please see: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard#sajed.ir --Polarlys (talk) 14:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Hum. Am I allowed to stay myself at the "laziness prevails" stage? I have spent much time in the past watching and checking the uploads of Gire 3pich2005 (and his socks), and I gave out regarding sajed.ir, in spite of my doubts (because regarding the pictures Gire uploaded, I had no clear evidence). This story didn't end well and I don't really want to go back there right now. You may want the opinion of Mardetanha (Iranian admin) though. Also, I think you should open regular DRs for such pics rather than use problem tags, since if one AGF, they are clearly stated as being published under GFDL. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 06:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Damas_-_mosquée_des_Omeyyades_-_plaque.jpg

File:Damas_-_mosquée_des_Omeyyades_-_plaque.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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

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

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

Eusebius (talk) 10:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Adding coordinates for Commons image files: help?

Dear Eusebius,

You reviewed my VI request & added the Commons coordinates for this phaaroh's mask in the Cairo museum last year:

File:Mask of Amenemope1.jpg

Unfortunately, I have a problem. The coordinates templates used on wikipedia do not at all match the ones used on wikipedia. They are totally separate. I have been trying to add the coordinates for this unique image from the UBC Museum of Anthropology I took but its is not possible:

File:Tsilhqot'in baby cradle (UBC2010a).jpg

And yet, the coordinates for this museum in Vancouver is perfectly clear from its wikipedia article here My question is can you add the special Commons template for adding a coordinate to this image of the baby cradle? The thing is I have about 100 other photos from the same museum in Vancouver on my Commons user page here...and I cannot even add one coordinate for them since the Commons coordinate template system is confusing.

Comment: Finally, I was thinking of perhaps submitting it for a future VI candidate....but I would not even know what the scope would be since it is an incredibly rare picture. If you wish to nominate it for VI status on my behalf, I would be honoured since I rarely do VI nominations nowdays but this may merit consideration if you think 1. the resolution is high enough and 2. the subject is of high cultural or historical importance. Please consider my suggestion. With kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Is this what you needed about the geotag? There are various templates, dealing with various coordinate formats. With this one, the decimal notation of the coordinates on the WP article can be added as is.

About the VI, I'm not sure: actually the rarity of the object (and of the possible associated scope) might make it difficult to pass the criteria, I think it would be considered too specialized (see here for considerations about scopes). Other people may have other opinions though, you can give it a chance anyway. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 05:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for showing me how wiki's coordinates could be entered in another way here. The only example I had was the one you entered for Amenemope's mask. As for the scope for the bay cradle, this is a really tough topic. Its unfortunate too because almost no one knows about the photo and it isn't used anywhere on wikipedia. I don't think I saw a catalogue for native Indian baby cradles anywhere. I suppose finding rare quality photos on Commons can be a needle in a haystack without the right cats too. All I can do is post it on my user page and hopefully someone will notice it. Best regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Airbus_A320-214_(CS-TKO).JPG

Vous avez raison, le fichier doit être supprimé à partir du magasin général, parce que je n'ai pas la permission de le publier, et le transfert automatique n'est pas regardé à la source de la ressource. Cordialement. Lazyhawk (talk) 10:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like an automatic translation :-) OK, the file will be deleted after the 7-day notice. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 12:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

FPC careless reviews

Hi Eusebius,

You may be interested in participating in this_discussion. Cheers, Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I saw your notice on someone else's talk page and I have already reacted. Thanks for your message. --Eusebius (talk) 16:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Copyright vios

File:S&ST5.jpg due to that user's history, I highly doubt this licensing as well. --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 08:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

This file has already been deleted. --Eusebius (talk) 08:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Commons_talk:Featured_picture_candidates#Option_3_.281_active_nomination.29

You voted to support this. I can only presume you haven't thouight this through:

Consider:

Those that nominate good FPs must wait 10 days to nominate again.
Those that noiminate bad FPCs need only wait 5 days (Rule of fifth day closure) or even just 1-2 days (FPX).

This means that the spammers will be able to put out more than the good contributors at a rate of as much as 10 to 1 in the worst cases.

Further, it's not unusual for potential FPCs to get finished in batches. A photographer comes back from vacation, or a restorationist finishes several projects in a burst of enthusiasm.

This proposal would force people to work on a timescale lengthy enough to kill all enthusiasm.

It gets worse:

This gives a strong disincentive against nominating work by anyone but yourself. People who go through and select high-quality works by others are usually to be praised, however, this proposal causes them to be punished.

I would ask that you reconsider your vote, and consider options 2 or 5, which are more restrictions than are currently in place, and which may always be built upon or increased later. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Would you please keep the debate where it is instead of porting it to the talk page of the voters? It is really unpleasant to be criticized for one's vote, especially in a systematic manner like that. Please try to imagine what the real life equivalent would be, and try to understand that this behaviour has been considered as intimidation in the past. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 05:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Tyumen Wooden Buildings 01.JPG

pls delete this file i uploaded it by mistake and it has freedom of panorama issues (Freedom_of_panorama#Russia)--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 12:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your message. Are you sure it is original enough to be copyrighted? If you think so you should simply nominate it for regular deletion. I wouldn't spontaneously open a deletion request myself, let alone speedy delete it. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 13:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Floods in QI

You might be interested in an ongoing discussion regarding QI floods of late, here. Cheers, ianaré (talk) 19:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I am getting pretty busy IRL, I cannot guarantee I'll participate in the discussion. --Eusebius (talk) 21:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

MVR

With an MVR with four images, I think it makes sense to allow voting for more than one. I realise that only one can pass, but I'd be happy with either one I voted for passing. I figured that, by voting for the two I thought had about equal merit, I'd indicate my preferences, and other people's votes would eventually lead to their preferences deciding the issue. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your reply. As I said, I understood what you meant by your vote. And you understood my concern :-) Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 21:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

2010051210043699

Hey, I just merged a ticket into something you handled. I don't believe any further action is necessary, but just letting you know since you know more about this case than anyone. 2010051210043699 Thanks. -Andrew c (talk) 15:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

No action necessary? I am really tempted to reply... but I'm not sure it would be a good idea. --Eusebius (talk) 15:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

What I meant was that you already approved the permission, so that part was covered. I feel like that person should receive some reply, whatever you feel is best, if you still want to handle it. I didn't mean to imply not to reply, just that it looked like the permission was already verified. Sorry for the mix up. -Andrew c (talk) 16:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

OK. I will reply a bit later though, I have to think about it. I must be measured becaused this guy is not the main responsible for the mess. --Eusebius (talk) 16:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

[24] :)--Mbz1 (talk) 21:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Council of Europe Palais de l'Europe aerial view.JPG

Maybe you could assist in this DR. While OTRS seems valid and come from Council of Europe I wonder does France copyrights allow transfer of rights from the author (architect) to the customer --Justass (talk) 21:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

As a visitor here, I juste want to say that the this building is NOT in France... Have an explanation here. --Jebulon (talk) 23:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll have a look at it. --Eusebius (talk) 07:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Cha-em.jpg

I have taken this photo, please undelete this file. Please inform me more instruction.. Thank you. --ธวัชชัย (talk) 09:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'm sorry, but this is very difficult to believe, since it is a very small image, and it looks like the reproduction of an existing photograph. You confirm me that you were in front of Cha-Em Kaeoklai when you took the picture? When did you take it? Can you provide the original file? Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 09:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I hope you know 4R photo. Thank you. ธวัชชัย (talk) 10:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

You mean it's a film photograph? OK, but could you please answer the other questions, just to clarify the situation? --Eusebius (talk) 11:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Saint-Malo - Surcouf et le Fort National.jpg

Was poking through your Valued image proposal, and loved the composition on this. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks then! I don't really know whether it is worth a FP, but I'm certainly partial. I'll propose a crop for the VI project. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 11:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Doute sur la procédure

En QI il ya une tortue en discussion. Un contradicteur s’appelle -Qiqritiq il est inscrit depuis hier et n’a rien versé comme photo ; mais il prend part au vote. Quel est l’usage en pareil cas ? --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Salut. J'ai vu. Rien n'interdit ça. Tant que les reviews ne sont pas complètement absurdes et qu'il n'y a pas de soupçon fort de collusion avec un autre utilisateur, je n'y vois pas de problème. Cordialement, --Eusebius (talk) 18:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Closed most valued reviews

Bonjour Eusebius, Merci d'avoir prévu les mois à venir dans Commons:Closed most valued reviews, mais pourrait-on avoir un accès aux revues de 2008 et 2009 aussi, par rouleau déroulant, nouvelle page, autre ? (Il m'arrive de consulter les revues passées à titre de, disons, jurisprudence.) --Myrabella (talk) 06:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Ben, j'ai mis des machins déroulants, non ? --Eusebius (talk) 07:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Damned, cela ne marche pas avec mon skin (Modern) mais sous Vector, ils s'affichent. J'avais pô envie de passer à Vector ! --Myrabella (talk) 07:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah désolé... Moi je suis resté sous monobook et ça s'affiche. Problème de Javascript... --Eusebius (talk) 07:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Time travel

From File:Loch_Ness_pano.jpg:

DescriptionEusebius/Archives/2010	English: The Loch Ness. Français : Le Loch Ness.
Date	8 August 2010
Source	Own work
Author	Eusebius

Shall I arrange to meet you in August when you're taking the picture, or will doing so risk a time paradox? ;) Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Fixed, thank you! --Eusebius (talk) 19:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Company Logo Image License

Hello Eusebius, I am new to the whole wikipedia article creation process. I posted an image that was a logo for La Curacao. I understand that I need a license to post that image onto the wikimedia commons. The company is actually owned by my family, so I am not sure how I can properly obtain a license for that image. Would a written document signed by the owner of the company be sufficient? Thanks, Tambal1210 (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi. We don't even need a written document, just an e-mail! He should send it to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, with the text found at COM:ET. Since the owner of the company is usually the copyright holder of the logo, he doesn't have to "obtain" a license, he just chooses one. Don't hesitate to ask me if you have more questions about the process, or when the email has been sent. --Eusebius (talk) 05:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Millennium line logo.svg

I have submitted an undeletion request in regard to your recent deletion of the file above. Sincerely, Blurpeace 21:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for notifying me. --Eusebius (talk) 21:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Template:Money-EU

I noted your comment on this talk page. See Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Money-EU Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, this template is already listed at Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Euro coin common face 2, which is still open. --Eusebius (talk) 11:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Since I've posted notices on several uploaders' page, I'll cross ref the one to the other. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Anjar - mur.jpg

Salut.
Comment fais-tu ça ? Tu as réussi à m'enthousiasmer avec un pan de mur (même pas jaune, même pas à Delft, comme aurait dit Proust). Je ne veux pas te flatter, mais c'est là que je vois la distance qu'il me reste à parcourir... Tout me plaît dans cette image, sa composition, le cadrage, la distance, en plus bien sûr des qualités techniques (pureté, clarté, lumière, netteté) presque trop travaillées, mais presque seulement. Il y a de l'Histoire, de la sobriété, même un peu de mystère oriental. Et surtout de l'intelligence. Non seulement c'est un vrai plaisir de la regarder, mais en plus, c'est... "confortable" (si tu vois ce que je veux dire). Bon voilà, c'est tout. Chapeau et merci pour cette belle image.--Jebulon (talk) 13:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Heu... C'est gentil mais de mon côté je trouve qu'il n'y a pas grand-chose dans cette image ! Il y avait juste une technique architecturale qui apparemment était propre au lieu, donc je me suis dit "tiens, ils en voudront peut-être sur Wikipedia", mais sinon je n'aurais jamais pris cette photo. Concernant la couleur et la lumière, je n'y suis pour rien : j'ai visité Anjar au petit matin avec des conditions de luminosité excellentes, et la pierre a une couleur vraiment spéciale. C'est pas pour ça que j'ai réussi toutes mes photos... Concernant la netteté et les autres aspects "techniques", c'est surtout dû au matériel, je me suis un peu laissé emporter par la course aux armements (dans la limite de mes moyens) depuis que je suis arrivé sur Commons. Un des grands pièges de la photo amateur j'imagine... Mais si ça peut te rassurer, quand je suis arrivé sur Commons il y a moins de trois ans, voilà le genre d'image que j'uploadais. C'est quand j'ai commencé à faire "candidater" mes photos sur le projet QI et à me prendre des reviews assez sévères que j'ai commencé à progresser (et très rapidement). Mais mes photos réussies, ça reste un pourcentage très très faible, je rame en photo... sauf coups de chance. --Eusebius (talk) 14:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Comme quoi... Bon, cette photo me plaît et puis c'est tout. Quant à la "course aux armements", comme tu dis, je vais m'y laisser un peu entraîner, mais je sens que ça devient vraiment nécessaire, là. Dès qu'il fait un peu gris, paf, "noisy", et dès qu'il fait trop beau, paf, "overexposed", sans parler des "CA". Bref, très bien, ton mur ! Je veux bien que la netteté dépende de ton matos, et que la lumière ait été particulièrement exceptionnelle ce matin-là, ou la pierre spéciale, n'empêche, Audentes fortuna juvat (ce sont les grands gardiens de but qui ont de la chance) non ?--Jebulon (talk) 22:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

J'aime bien ton style de traduction, on ne doit pas avoir le même Gaffiot... :-) --Eusebius (talk) 06:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Content de t'avoir peut-être fait sourire ! C'est un peu trop sérieux, ici parfois, non ? Gaffiot ? Tu dates ! Et pourquoi pas Bailly, tant que tu y es ? (mes exemplaires de chacun sont bien usés, aujourd'hui...). Au moins tu vois que je n'ai pas menti dans mon "Babel"... Non, moi, je ne m'alimente que là. Si tu veux t'amuser un peu, va y faire un tour, et c'est authentiquement ce que ça a l'air d'être !! Tu y verras comment traduire "vodka", "pizza", "préservatif" (tegumembra, j'adore !), "mazurka" et autres. A mourir de rire à mon avis. Je vais essayer de suivre ton conseil pour ma colonne (c'est marrant, ça, comme expression, se débruiter la colonne, bon je m'égare...); A bientôt !--Jebulon (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Candidate; Captial with crowd and cameras

A mistake was made in placing it under such a broad scope. You are correct the image is not suitable under the scope it originaly had, but I have changed the scope and adjusted some tilt pointed out as well. The scope was supposed to be Post election events of Propisition 8, but it had not been created. I mistook the category from the wikiarticle it was linked from. Would you reconsider the decline at this point?--Amadscientist (talk) 00:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I will have a look at it. --Eusebius (talk) 05:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Dolceforbidden.JPG

I am curious on why this image was tagged as missing essential source information. So the licensing section of the image description does not give enough info? --Sreejithk2000 (talk) 18:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The original uploader never identified the photographer, he never said it was own work, and given the warnings on his en.WP talk page, the small size and the lack of meta-data, I am reluctant to make this assumption myself. But a simple statement from him would be enough. I hope it explains why I've tagged.

Please don't hesitate to ask again if you don't understand my actions or if you think I've made a mistake. If necessary, a missing source/permission template can be transformed into a regular deletion request in order to ask for further advice or trigger a discussion (instead of accepting image removal after 7 days). --Eusebius (talk) 19:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The english wiki page of the image has this license info. I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following licenses. So I am inclined to assume that he is the original photographer or at least he owns the copyright of the image.

Shouldn't be the regular deletion request a better approach for this image? Sreejithk2000 (talk) 16:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

This is the phrasing of an automatic license tag on en.WP, this is not an explicit statement, even short. A DR would be a perfectly OK approach for that kind of picture, I'll make the change. An even better approach would be to ask the uploader for a confirmation that he has taken the picture. Since you work on Wikipedia and I don't, it would be really nice if you could ask him. --Eusebius (talk) 17:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

File:A_r_choudhury.jpg

This image in en wiki has been tagged to be moved to commons. Do images like these which are used only in user pages need to be moved to commons? Sreejithk2000 (talk) 08:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is ok for a user to host a few images for their user page, and these can be on Commons as soon as they are free of rights (i.e. if it can be safely assumed that it is an autoportrait). Of course, if the user is abusing WMF websites to host his whole collection of family pictures, they might be deleted as outside the scope of the project, but I doubt Wikipedia would allow that either. --Eusebius (talk) 08:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Aleppo photograph

Dear Mr Piolle

We wanted to thank you for the image of the Cidadel of Aleppo, which will be used as a tiny picture on a card for a children's educational game called Biblical Ody-see. To find out more about the game and us, please go to http://www.ody-see.com. We always acknowledge our sources on this web site.

Regards Len Wicks

Dear Mr Wicks, thank you for this notice. I'm glad to see you find this picture useful. Please be sure to include credits anywhere you use the picture! Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 09:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

File:HealingService.JPG

User claims that he has emailed to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org yesterday. He left a message in my talk page. Sreejithk2000 (talk) 02:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, then the thing to do is to put {{OTRS pending}} in the permission field. I'll do it. Thanks. --Eusebius (talk) 05:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Sleep_apnea_preop_postop_v01.jpg

question / droits de la photo Bonjour, j'ai bien vu ton message. Je ne le pense pas, car je l'ai importé de Wikipedia allemande. Et le copyright exigeait que la source soit mentionnée. Néanmoins, je vais lui laisser un message sur sa feuille de contribution pour valider avec lui. Amicalement. --Guy Courtois (talk) 06:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Bonjour, j'ai taggé les images car je n'ai pas trouvé d'éléments permettant de dire que l'uploader était Hermann F. Sailer. C'est pour ça que nous avons besoin de sa permission, ou d'un signe que les images ont été publiées sous licence libre (à moins éventuellement qu'on puisse déterminer que les radiographies ne sont pas éligible au droit d'auteur en Allemagne). --Eusebius (talk) 07:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Category:Rudolf Peierls

G'day Eusebius, you caught me in a work in progress, however you have prompted me to do more digging. I have been doing a major clean up of categories associated with the UK Honours System, moving images and categories where they belong. Knights of the UK is a super category, normally only to be link to subordinate categories per COM:OVERCAT. I have updated Peierls' main Wikipedia page with reference details of his CBE and Knight Bachelor and have retagged his image category to reflect these specific awards. Cheers, AusTerrapin (talk) 12:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw your second edit (I try to revert cat removals when there's a loss of information). I had a look at your contribs and was expecting some recat from you :-) Thanks for your work. --Eusebius (talk) 12:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:BarcelonaFotovoltaica.JPG

Thank-you for your message. This image is my own work.--1997 (talk) 10:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

OK thanks for the confirmation! --Eusebius (talk) 17:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Nouvelles dénominations

Bonjour,

Peux-tu renommer les 2 catégories suivantes qui ont respectivement 28 et 27 images

La première correspond mieux à une attache historique du lieu, et la deuxième est tout simplement sa dénomination officielle. Merci.

Milky (talk) 09:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

OK pour le deuxième, mais pour le premier je m'en tiendrais à "Palais du parlement du Dauphiné", parce qu'à ma connaissance il n'y en a pas d'autre ! --Eusebius (talk) 11:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

as usual

Hi!
I've just given your "friend" 6 months of "extended reading permission". ;) I don't know, why we AGF that much, but I guess, it should be up to you wether to give indefinite to him. Kind regards, abf «Cabale!» 19:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I don't remember him specifically but I've had a look at the history. Nothing but copyvios and ignored warnings/blocks, indefblock wouldn't be shocking indeed. I'll do it if you wish so. --Eusebius (talk) 20:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Picture reuse

Dear Guillaume Piolle,

I just wanted to inform you, that we are using your picture of the Parthenon (Parthenon_012) in Athen for a presentation for teachers in our Museum in Germany, the Mathematikum (www.mathematikum.de). We hope, this is ok.

Thank you for the nice picture With best regards

Laila Popovic

Hi. Thanks for the notice. I'm glad you find my work useful, although I don't have a picture named like that. Maybe it's someone else's. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 21:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Please use Category redirect

When there is not a obious misspelling, please do not delete [25] old categories after a rename. In order to avoid broken links in Wikipedia (do not forget there are 271 languages other en), use instead {{Category redirect}}. Thanks. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 07:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

What you say sounds reasonable, but if we did that, that would mean thousands of empty categories with only redirections. On the other hand, recreating an empty category just to put a redirection template, more than one year after its deletion and when the deletion summary did exactly the same job as the cat redirect template, can hardly be justified. --Eusebius (talk) 08:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Musée archéologique de Grenoble

Bonjour, je viens d' envoyer un mail de confirmation à votre intention. Je reste à disposition pour tout ce que vous jugerez nécessaire. Cordialement Musée archéologique de Grenoble (talk) 06:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC) Je vois que la signature a été modifiée. Je l'avais raccourcie en ne mettant que les initiales MAG . Cela pose problème ? Musée archéologique de Grenoble (talk) 06:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

OK je vais suivre l'affaire. Pour la signature, non ça ne devrait pas poser de problème, peut-être que vous n'avez pas bien validé le changement de préférences. --Eusebius (talk) 09:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Merci à vous. Pour la signature, cela marchait bien, voir les discussions sur la page du musée archéologique de Grenoble, j'ai cru c'était vous qui aviez changé cela Musée archéologique de Grenoble (talk) 11:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Invisible watermarks

Hi Eusebius, just letting you know I've removed the watermark tags you added to a couple images that had invisible watermarks (e.g. File:Garden delights.jpg). This is a cleanup tag and as you know it's very technically difficult to remove invisible watermarks, and it offers no immediate benefit to the reader to do so. We might want a different tag for invisible watermarks. Let me know what you think. Dcoetzee (talk) 19:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I can't see invisible watermarks, so it's not what I'm talking about: either I saw something, or it is an error. Here the watermark is not invisible at all, there is a running caption "museo nacional del Prado", have a look at the top of the right panel, in the dark parts. It is light, but not invisible. Anyway this is not a demand to have the watermark removed (if it's difficult to do for instance), merely a notification that it is here and should be removed if possible. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 07:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Oops, sorry! Sometimes they're very hard to see and I overlooked that one. I'll put the tag back. :-) I only want to avoid using the tag on images with invisible watermarks, visible ones are fine, no matter how difficult to remove. Dcoetzee (talk) 19:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure. --Eusebius (talk) 20:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thummer.jpg deleted

You're a swell person to invest your valuable time in such a mundane task.

That said... ;-)

An image I uploaded, Thummer.jpg, has apparently been deleted. A message at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JimPlamondon&redirect=no suggested that I do something about it. The message was written in Geek. At no point did the message say "press THIS BUTTON to let Wikipedia use this image." Instead, it asked me to undertake an open-ended learning exercise to unravel the relevant arcana.

I have subsequently contributed other pictures, which have not been deleted, so apparently I did something different on those, although I cannot recall what it was.

The Thummer is now a historical footnote, so it's no longer worth it to me to invest the time to figure out what the message was trying to say. End of Thummer.jpg.

For future reference: I encourage you to add a single button/link/whatever to the UI for such messages, which, when pressed, tells Wikipedia that the button-pusher owns all copyright to the relevant item and grants Wikipedia its favorite right-set, under its favorite license. Call it "Press THIS BUTTON to Let Wikipedia Use This Item" or somesuch.

I'm sure you're heard it before. Somewhere, Wikipedia probably even has a Feature Voting Page that would make it easy for me to vote on such things. I don't care that much. As a first approximation, no one does. We're all just passing through. The UI needs to be brain-dead simple. I've spent longer writing this entry than I was willing to spend decoding the Geek message, in hopes of benefiting others whose ability to contribute to Wikipedia is limited by their inability to speak Geek.

Hoping that this entry will contribute some infinitely-small iota to making the world a better place, I am

Respectfully Yours,

Jim Plamondon 24.238.133.230 00:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, I remember this case, we had to delete because we got no reaction from you (as it often happens with occasional contributors). Unfortunately, in this case, we cannot implement a "brain-dead simple" procedure for the issue, because independently from the "geeky" phrasing of the request, what we need is a legally binding statement sent by e-mail. If you still want/need this picture to be used on Wikipedia and if you're actually the copyright holder (i.e. you took the picture yourself, or you bought the rights from the photographer if this is possible in your country), would you please send a statement phrased this way to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org? If there's still something that you don't understand, please react here. --Eusebius (talk) 05:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

ahmed bassiouny

File:محيي نوح وأحمد علي عطية الله.jpg

how to give permission to the picture it is just pictures that i am photograhed it with my friend --احمد بسيونى (talk) 22:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Did you take the photographs yourself? Because they're credited to other people, and stated to come from Facebook accounts. And they're not originals. (On peut parler en français si vous préférez). --Eusebius (talk) 05:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I speak English and frensh exellent Les trois photos ont été photographiés par le professeur Ahmed Ali lui-même ou un de ses amis Il a une photo seul et les deux autres avec les deux héros Il n'a pas besoin de droits pour paticiper ou partager les images parceque Ils sont disponibles pour l'usage public de la compagnie Equitable — Preceding unsigned comment added by احمد بسيونى (talk • contribs) 23:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC) (UTC)

Bonjour, le fait que les photographies soient déjà publiées quelque part n'implique absolument pas qu'elles soient sous une licence libre. Par défaut, ces images sont protégées par le droit d'auteur. Pour chaque photographie, il nous faut une déclaration de permission (modèle ici) de l'auteur (celui qui a pris la photo). --Eusebius (talk) 05:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

l est difficile de demander à l'écrivain Ahmed Ali, le propriétaire des photos qui me donne ni écrire la permission de publier des images Mais j'étais prêt à me reconnaître, parce que je suis confiant et bien sûr il ne serait jamais refuser de publier ces images en tout lieu aussi son partenaire dans le troisième photo et son partenaire dans la deuxième photo est mort en 2001 --احمد بسيونى (talk) 15:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Je regrette mais il n'est pas possible de supposer par défaut que l'auteur des photographies (qui n'est pas forcément leur propriétaire) consent à une publication sous licence libre, qui comprend la possibilité pour quiconque d'utiliser l'image pour tout usage, y compris les oeuvres dérivées et les utilisations commerciales. Sans permission écrite (par e-mail), les photos devront être supprimées. --Eusebius (talk) 16:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Est ce que je peux faire la permission de 3 images sous la permission du {{PD-Egypt-author}} ?--احمد بسيونى (talk) 17:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Seulement si ces photographies ont été publiées en Egypte avant 1981, ce qu'il faudra montrer. --Eusebius (talk) 19:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Non les photos sont apre`s cette anne`mais que est ce que c `est votre email et je demand au ecrivan d`envoie a toi un message avec son accepte a publie` les 3 photo--احمد بسيونى (talk) 23:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Il faudrait envoyer un e-mail sous cette forme à permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. --Eusebius (talk) 06:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Ahmed Ali avais envoye` son permission pour les 3 photos pour la publication--احمد بسيونى (talk) 09:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

OK. --Eusebius (talk) 09:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

pardon?

File:Hill Artwork.jpg, File:Hill-zaini.jpg, File:Hil Zaini.jpg: "However, the message was not sufficient to confirm permission for this file." Hekerui (talk) 19:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but this template means that there is a communication going on between the sender of the permission and an OTRS agent. When the OTRS agent sees that there is no chance to get a valid permission, the file will be nominated for speedy deletion, with a mention like "ticket #XXX does not contain a valid permission". The "OTRS received" template means something like "it's not ok for now, but we're working on it". --Eusebius (talk) 19:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

A communication since January? They're forgotten and copyright violations are also a serious issue. And it's not like they can't be restored if something is suddenly forthcoming. After five months :/ Hekerui (talk) 21:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Some cases stay open for a while, that's right... I'll have a look at this one though (just not right now), and I'll delete if necessary. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 22:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

That's good. Best wishes Hekerui (talk) 22:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with this! Hekerui (talk) 11:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

VICtime de ton succès

Salut Eusebius, A nouveau une question sur les VI : peut-on modifier directement la page Commons:Valued images by topic, ou y a-t-il d'autres modifs à faire en cascade et vaut-il mieux (t')en parler d'abord au cas par cas ? A titre d'exemple, ta VI sur Surcouf a été classée dans les "Statues, monuments and plaques" or elle avait été nominée plutôt au titre des "People", n'est-ce pas ? (j'ai quelques autres cas en tête).
Une autre demande concerne deux nominations en cours, renominations mal déclarées qui posent des problèmes d'édition : Commons:Valued image candidates/Lethocerus americanus.jpg 2 qui renvoie sur la première revue Commons:Valued image candidates/Lethocerus americanus.jpg quand on clique sur Review it! depuis la page des VIC; idem avec Commons:Valued image candidates/Northwestern salamander.jpg 2 pour laquelle le lien Review it! renvoie sur l'ancienne page Commons:Valued image candidates/Northwestern salamander.jpg. Encore une fois plein de mercis par avance, --Myrabella (talk) 18:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Salut. Alors pour les galeries "par topic", oui, on peut les bouger à la main, ça ne pose pas de souci. Si je me souviens bien, on peut même se contenter de supprimer celle qui n'est pas à sa place, et elle sera rajoutée aux "recently promoted" à la passe suivante du bot (ou alors à la passe du dimanche, je ne sais plus exactement comment j'ai fait ça... faudrait quand même que je m'y remette un jour). Pour les deux pages de candidats qui posaient problème (c'est réglé), le souci était le paramètre "subpage" de la page qui était mal réglé, mais j'ai aussi renommé les pages, parce qu'il me semble que l'histoire a montré que lorsqu'une page de VIC a pour préfixe le nom d'une autre page, le bot s'emmêle les pinceaux. Donc il vaut mieux avoir "Bla.jpg" et "Bla 2" (par exemple) que "Bla.jpg" et "Bla.jpg 2". Voilà... --Eusebius (talk) 19:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Bon ben je n'aurai pas le plaisir de te le dire pour de vrai à la rentrée, mais merci beaucoup, une fois de plus ! --Myrabella (talk) 19:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Oui c'est bête j'aurais bien aimé venir ! --Eusebius (talk) 19:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Surcouf

Alors voilà je l'avais enlevée à la main mais je ne l'ai pas vu réapparaitre dans les "recently promoted" à (re)classer. Je vais la réinsérer dans la bonne galerie mais pour le moment, je te signale juste ce fonctionnement qui n'était pas celui que j'attendais. --Myrabella (talk) 11:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, le bout de code en question doit être désactivé... Désolé. --Eusebius (talk) 11:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Image for educational use

We have downloaded your image of the South Porch of Chartres Cathedral for educational use.

brendam@uwo.ca, June 30, 2010--129.100.63.201 15:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you find this picture useful, thanks for the notification. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 15:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Gliese.JPG and OTRS

Hi. I was curious why you made this edit saying that OTRS was never needed. How did you conclude that? I ask because a derivative, File:Gliese-cropped.JPG, is still marked with OTRS received and I was deleting old OTRS received files. Thank you. Wknight94 ^talk 02:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi. These pictures were uploaded before the OTRS system was really in place, and the account claimed to represent the source website. The opened ticket was an attempt from volunteers to reach the copyright holder, but this couldn't be done so we decided to AGF, since the OTRS requirement was not clear at this time and we have no serious reason to doubt that the uploader is the copyright holder. On this basis I'll remove the "OTRS received" tag from the DW. --Eusebius (talk) 15:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Wknight94 ^talk 16:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

european money

(http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:Euro_coin_common_face_2) Im see very easy way. Representatives of european bank are not some type of "Cannibals" and we dont must have a "fear" from him. Can somebody, who speack english soo good written to european bank e-mail with permission request? Some type of "ORTS" to banknotes with specimem overprint? Why has nobody thought of this simple solution?

Look, I notice that across Wikipedia in general - why do not resolve the problems the most easiest way? It is afraid that the European Bank will kill you, because you write to her request for an opinion?

Cordialement... ---hax0r (talk) 14:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi. It's not a bad idea, but it's not as easy as it sounds. Writing to them is easy of course, but I've had to deal with replies from other national central banks, and their message is always constructed in a way that makes it very very difficult to separate the copyright issues from the non-copyright (anti-counterfeiting) issues. It is apparently in their interest not to make too simple responses like "there are no copyright restrictions on the design, but there are anti-counterfeiting restrictions which are...". In short, this reply should be dealt with by an OTRS agent, but I personally don't want to deal with it, it's too difficult and it is more like a lawyer's job. But if you find an OTRS agent which is ok to handle that, go on (you can ask here). The problem is, even if there is an OTRS ticket, I'm afraid its validity will be constantly questionned because opinions will differ on its interpretation. Yes, I'm a bit negative. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 18:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Eilean Donan Castle

Hi Eusebius,

i use your picture to eb included in the program "YoWindow" (commercial). It's a weather displaying-program and animates clouds, displays rain,, sun and moon, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.223.115.100 (talk • contribs) 10:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC) (UTC)

Hi. I'm glad you find this picture useful, thanks for notifying me. Be sure to credit me as the author whenever you use the picture. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 11:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Mblock2.jpg

What is the problem? I made the photo and i ask him if it would be ok to use it in the commons. He laughed and saided all right. I wrote at Source: Email M. Eckardt an mich mit Hinweis und Erlaubnis zur Verwendung (email from mr eckardt [the creator] to me with the note that i m allowed to set the picture as "freeware" / gpl or whatever i want in the commons). so please take back the deleting notice. thanks. --Okami-san (talk) 16:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Maybe I don't understand the situation properly. If you made the photo yourself, why do you think Mr Eckardt is the creator? Who took the original picture, who pushed the button on the camera? --Eusebius (talk) 17:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

i pushed the button but the creator of the metal block is mr. eckardt. --Okami-san (talk) 11:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

OK. I'll update the image page, thank you. --Eusebius (talk) 13:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Flickr review crash

Who runs (and fixes) the flickr review bot today? The situation with the bot is very bad at present and it has malfunctioned for 3 days now. I made a note of it here The backlog is 230+ images right now and may hit 275-290 by Sunday night if the bot is not fixed. Frankly, I imagine a lot of uploaders will soon be upset. I mark some photos...but I am only one person and I wonder where are the other Admins and trusted users who can tackle the backlog. Its like that bad song lyrics: 'its a sad sad situation. And its growing more absurd.' Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Apparently it's Bryan who operates FlickreviewR, and it is said on his talk page that he should be contacted by e-mail. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 07:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

MGA73 left a message on his talkpage and told me he has now E-mailed Bryan. Frankly, Commons should have a 'backup plan.' So, if Bryan is away or ill, there is someone else who can fix the problem. Its not wise to rely on just 1 person for such an important function. All I can suggest is that maybe you can consider marking a small amount (10-15?) photos in the backlog. Abigor is now gone forever and its a major loss. He could mark 100 images a day. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I have very little time for Commons now, and I'm sorry but reviewing Flickr images would not be my top priority... --Eusebius (talk) 10:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

That's OK. Luckily, MGA73 E-mailed Bryan who managed to fix the problem. It seems that E-mailing Bryan is the best way to get his attention as he doesn't check his messages on Commons on a daily basis. The flickr bot finally works after 3 days of breakdowns. I managed to get another trusted user to help mark some of the photos too...but thanks for responding to my message. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, good to hear that the issue's solved. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 08:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Picture reuse

Eusebius, I'm going to use your picture for a Renaissance literature class. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.116.156.166 (talk • contribs) 09:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC) (UTC)

Hi, I'm glad you find my work useful. Would you be kind enough to tell me which picture it is (the Duomo in Florence, I guess?), and to tell me more about this class (where it is held)? Thanks a lot. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 11:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Roger-Maurice Bonnet Baikonur.jpg

Bonjour, J'ai un souci avec FlickrReview quant à la licence utilisée pour cette photo . Peux-tu m'aider et me dire quelle licence je dois mettre dans Flickr ? Merci--Cordialement, Kasos_Fr, (talk) 12:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Bonjour. Peu importe en fait (formellement), puisque vous n'êtes pas Stéphane Corvaja : il est le seul à pouvoir publier ses photographies sous une licence donnée. Je vous avais expliqué il y a quelque temps qu'il nous fallait un e-mail de confirmation de sa part, je lui en avais fait la demande (12 décembre 2009) et vous avais envoyé une copie de mon message (1er janvier 2010), mais il n'y a jamais répondu. Sans manifestation de M. Corvaja, il n'y a rien que vous puissiez faire pour faire publier ses photographies sur Commons, lui seul a ce droit. Cordialement, --Eusebius (talk) 12:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Et j'en profite pour supprimer la photographie directement, puisque vous l'avez recréée malgré la suppression de File:Roger-Maurice Bonnet 2.jpg. --Eusebius (talk) 12:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Je ne peux que vous retransmettre le mail du 28/12/2009 reçu de Roger-Maurice Bonnet, retransmettant celui de M. Corvaja :

Que puis-je faire de plus ?--Cordialement, Kasos_Fr, (talk) 15:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Je supprime le texte car c'est une correspondance privée. Ce n'est pas une autorisation acceptable pour nous, car l'auteur ne parle absolument pas d'une publication sous licence libre. Son autorisation est limitée à une biographie. Nous avons déjà discuté de la question, nous avons eu de nombreux échanges d'e-mails sur le sujet il y a six mois, nous avons fait ce qui était possible de faire pour obtenir une autorisation, et nous ne l'avons pas eue. À moins que vous n'ayiez un autre moyen de contacter M. Corvaja, il n'y a rien à faire de plus. Cette photographie n'est actuellement pas sous licence libre, c'est tout. --Eusebius (talk) 16:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Je peux contacter M. Corvaja puisque j'ai son adresse mail. Mais il n'est pas wikipédien et ne connait rien de ses arcanes. A quelle adresse mail doit-il envoyer son autorisation ?--Cordialement, Kasos_Fr, (talk) 16:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Pour mémoire nous lui avons déjà envoyé un mail, auquel il n'a jamais répondu. Il faut qu'il envoie son message à permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (ou que vous transmettiez son message), avec une autorisation sous la forme de la déclaration de consentement ici. --Eusebius (talk) 16:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Alumni cats

	Hello, Eusebius/Archives. You have new messages at FieldMarine's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ English ∙ español ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ हिन्दी ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ Tagalog ∙ Türkçe ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

-- FieldMarine (talk) 00:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Gire_3pich2005

Hi. my name is Gire_3pich2005. Mardetanha talked to me. He satisfied me to more respect to rules. I apologize you & wiki. I promise dont upload deleted pictures again. I have very photographs that take by myself camera (sx100 IS) that are Valuable for commons. I dont like make sockpoint like BIMBO_JIMBO2000. Please give me another Chance.217.218.249.150 08:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

OK. your main account has been unblocked. --Eusebius (talk) 10:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Eusebius Thanks :) Mardetanha ^talk 13:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

rollback

Weird. I have no idea why i did that. I think I must have misclicked. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 23:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

That's what I assumed. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 06:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Bienensenf_mit_Dolmi.jpg

File:Bienensenf mit Dolmi.jpg

File:Bienensenf_mit_Dolmi.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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

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

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

Guandalug (talk) 17:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the repeated cropping of the (indeed okay) lower part of the picture. My complaint was with the (blurry) upper part. Learned too late that there already had been a deletion request - sorry for that. --Guandalug (talk) 18:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, it was useful to nominate, I hadn't spotted the transition to the unfree version. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 18:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

If I have to choose between a blurry picture and no picture at all, I choose the blurry one. Polluks (talk) 12:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The crop you propose is an unfree derivative work. Don't recreate it again. --Eusebius (talk) 13:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Please explain me the difference, someone at flickr takes a free (upload tool verified) picture of two women: one woman has copyright, another woman has no copyright. Are you sure? -- Polluks (talk) 13:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The first part of the picture is "live" (so only the photographer has copyright, and therefore he is free to release his work on Flickr under a free license), the other part is a screen, therefore it is a derivative work of the video (I guess it is a video). The issue has been discussed already, and we have neither source nor permission for this video, this is why we had to delete it. It should stay deleted unless we get more info about it. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 19:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Aha. -- Polluks (talk) 04:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Saludos

File:Medallas2010.jpg

Español o English? I speak both, I sent an email to the photographer so he can give the appropriate permition although he already had. Let me know in en.Wikipedia. Eljohnson15 (talk) 14:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

English is easier for me! Unfortunately the permission we need is not from the photographer but from the maker(s) of the medals. Please have a look at COM:DW for the general explanation. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 14:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Rainbow-Philippines.jpg

Can you please delete the file Image:Rainbow-Philippines.jpg due to wrong info. --Dico Calingal (talk) 11:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

What would be the rationale for deleting this picture? What "wrong info" are you talking about? --Eusebius (talk) 12:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

reutilización de fotografía

Respetado señor:

Le informo que estoy utilizando su buena fotografía del rosetón de la Catedral de Chartres, en homenaje a la Glorificación de María. Le agradezco. Mi blog es www.movimiento-fratres.blogspot.com

Luis Felipe Salamanca C. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.66.124.151 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC) (UTC)

Hola, gracias por esa notificación. Me alegro de que mi foto le sea útil. Cordialmente, --Eusebius (talk) 19:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Re:File:Bréhec - côte.JPG

Tanks for your words. No problem.

Español: Si deseas que alguien traduzca este mensaje, o alguna parte del mensaje, puedo pedir ayuda

Español: Deseo que tu nivel de español sea mejor que mi nivel de inglés. Expresándome en ingles estoy muy limitado, aunque puedo comprender lo habitual o más de lo habitual (puedes dirigirte a mí en inglés), pero difícilmente soy capaz de expresar lo que deseo. De hecho me dirijo a ti en español porque sería imposible para mí decir lo mismo en inglés.

En primer lugar te pido que no consideres que hay problema donde no lo hay: Yo tengo mi criterio, pero no tengo experiencia en la página de QI. Retiro mi opinión porque llevo menos de un mes colaborando en esa página, porque considero que soy un principiante. Es más, si en el futuro alguien considera inadecuadas mis observaciones y esas observaciones hechas por mí no tuvieron el apoyo de otros, las voy a retirar sistemáticamente. Es algo que va a ocurrir hasta que me sienta seguro, cosa que es posible que nunca ocurra.

En segundo lugar, lo que sobre todo no quiero es crearme enemigos (por eso agradezco especialmente que te hayas dirigido a mí): Prefiero que se aprueben cien imágenes con las que no esté de acuerdo a tener un enemigo. Te sorprenderá esta observación, pero por desgracia he conseguido tener enemigos al trabajar en Wikimedia, y no quiero tener enemigos: Si mis opiniones tienen el apoyo de otro usuario las mantendré, si son exclusivamente mías y si, sobre todo, son contestadas o criticadas, las retiraré. Esta actitud la he decidido previamente a hacer el comentario sobre tu imagen.

No deseo sentirme importante (hasta podría decir que en otro tiempo he sido importante pues fui burócrata en Commons y en otros proyectos hace no mucho tiempo). Deseo paz y deseo aprender. Y deseo tansmitir que eso es lo que deseo.

El contenido de tus palabras no influyeron en el hecho de que retirase mi voto. La decisión de retirarlo estaba previamente tomada al haber cualquier tipo de contestación y no haber apoyo. La verdad es que cambio el sentido del voto porque tengo miedo.

Miedo a hacer algo incorrecto.

¿Miedo a verme perseguido por alguien más (acoso en la vida real)?. No puedo asegurarlo.

Es así de simple. Ni siquiera me importa demasiado lo que pienso, aunque piense que las normas de QI son demasiado blandas o relajadas hasta para con mis propias imágenes.

Gracias. Muchas gracias. Para mí es muy importante que te hayas dirigido a mí, pero no hay problema. Tras dirigirte a mí, menos problemas puede haber

--Lmbuga (talk) 23:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your long response. I can read Spanish well enough, but just like you, it is safer if I write in English! I totally understand your position. I confirm that there is absolutely no problem. I just want to add that with most people in the QI project, it is totally possible to disagree on the evaluation of a picture without any kind of conflict. There will always be a subjective part in the evaluation (mostly regarding composition, in my opinion, and at a lesser extent with the acceptance threshold of the technical criteria: noise, CA, sharpness...), even though it is less significant than in FP evaluation. Best regards, --Eusebius (talk) 07:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocked account

Hi, could you unblocked my account? I have created my account 2 years ago and never used it, but now i need it a lot, so if you could, i'll be happy and gratefull My account is User:Marcelus. 79.163.48.167 13:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi. You might be mistaken. This account was previously used, along with User:Marcetw, for massive uploads of copyright violations, and they were all rightly blocked for violating the project policies (on copyright and on multiple accounts -- details here). If you are not the former user of these accounts, I suggest you create a new one with a different name, because this one definitely has a history. If you are this person, you need to acknowledge these actions and show your understanding of the policies before requesting one of the accounts to be unblocked. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 13:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Your mis-understanding and categorization of Category:Bass guitars

Hi, Eusebius.

You think my edit as vandalism, but it is your misunderstanding.

The most important issue that we should discuss and solve may be: to provide more reasonable and easy accessible sub-category structure under Category:Guitars. At present, it has certain contradictions and problems.

For example, Category:Bass guitars is treated as a sub-category of Category:Guitars, but most sub-categories under it (ex: Category:Fender bass guitars) are not reachable from Category:Guitars by brand. This problem is occurred when someone had disjointed each "bass guitars sub-categories" from parent "guitars subcategory".

Can you share the problem ? and do you agree needs for discussion ?

best regards, --Guitarpop (talk) 09:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I understand this issue (it is not specific to guitars), but it is not solved by breaking the existing categorization of Bass guitars. It is solved by improving the categorization of Fender bass guitars to make it both part of Bass guitars and Guitars by brand. I grant you that the existing tools are not very convenient for dealing with cross categories (better categorization features have been requested in MediaWiki for years), but it's no justification for going against the overall categorization scheme and efforts. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 10:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response. My first proposal had been failed, so I want to offer other proposal using example.

In case of Fender Musical Instruments Corporation, Category:Fender is a top category of the brand, so we could remove Category:Fender guitars and add Category:Fender to Category:Guitars by brand.

But possibly someone may disagree this, because Category:Fender also contains Category:Fender Rhodes, a electric piano brand in the past. The other proposal is: move Category:Fender bass guitars under Category:Fender guitars, and left guitars on Category:Guitars by brand.

I think later proposal is more reasonable, because bass guitar is subcategory of guitar. --Guitarpop (talk) 10:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I fully understand. Let me rephrase your last proposal: "Fender < Fender guitars < Fender bass guitars", with also "Guitars by brand < Fender Guitars" and "Bass guitars < Fender bass guitars"? --Eusebius (talk) 12:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, my recommendation is such like this:

Musical instruments manufacturers < Fender < Fender guitars < Fender bass guitars
Guitars < Guitars by brand < Fender guitars < Fender bass guitars
Guitars < Guitars by type < Bass guitars < Fender bass guitars

Bold-faced part will be added after we agree, and the change may be minimum. --Guitarpop (talk) 15:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is a proper categorization, no problem to implement it. --Eusebius (talk) 16:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to your kindly discussion. I'll implement it, if others don't oppose to it. --Guitarpop (talk) 15:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

VI en MVR : Francfort-sur-le-Main

Bonjour Eusebius, C'est la première fois pour ma part que je vois une VI remise en cause dans une MVR : Commons:Valued image candidates#Frankfurt am Main. Le nominateur a suivi le mode d'emploi, qui demande seulement de ré-ouvrir la page de revue en changeant son statut en "discussed", mais le résultat n'est pas hyper clair pour les lecteurs ; de plus, on a déjà le message indiquant qu'on peut fermer la revue, comme sa date de nomination n'a pas été actualisée. J'ai essayé de la présenter un peu plus clairement, mais je veux bien ton œil (et si en plus tu avais un avis sur le fond, ne t'interdis surtout pas de le donner ! ;-). Plus une petite question technique : pourquoi, dans ce cas, ne fait-on pas une renomination ? --Myrabella (talk) 11:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Ben heu globalement c'est une renomination, techniquement. Ça revient à ça. Pour le message de clôture c'est juste qu'il faut réinitialiser la date dans le template. Je vais jeter un coup d'oeil. --Eusebius (talk) 11:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Merci. Je pensais qu'il y avait une raison particulière, car le guide indique pour les MVR : "If one of the candidates is an existing VI within essentially the same scope, the original VIC subpage is re-opened for voting by changing its status to status=discussed and new reviews are appended to the original VIC subpage." et pour les renominations, il ne parle que des "declined or undecided VICs and VISCs". Bon, c'est juste pour rendre les nominateurs un peu plus dingues alors ? --Myrabella (talk) 11:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Bah, c'est que ça n'a pas été homogénéisé c'est tout. Il n'y aurait pas de mal à dire de suivre la même procédure que pour les autres re-nominations. --Eusebius (talk) 11:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Stèle egyptienne

Le basalte est en fait du granit (probablement d'Assouan). Les micros surexpositions sont les reflets des cristaux de micas. La couleur rosée celle de l'orthose. Le basalte est noir voir gris, jamais de cette couleur ni texture. Ceci n'enlevant rien à l'intérêt de la photo. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Salut. Je suis d'accord avec toi pour dire que ça mérite discussion, mais je suis sûr à 90% que ce n'est pas du granite d'Assouan, si c'est du granite. Il faut bien voir que la couleur est en grande partie due à l'éclairage, et le cartel du musée documente la stèle comme étant en basalte. Honnêtement, la texture ne me choque pas pour du basalte. Ca me semble assez similaire à ça ou à ça. --Eusebius (talk) 16:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Using panoramic photograph of Baalbek for travel article

I am writing a travel article for AramcoExPats.com about a trip to Lebanon and one of the destinations is Baalbek. I would like to use your photo of the Great Court with the article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pano_Baalbek_1.jpg). I will credit you at the photographer.

Thanks!

Theresa Carpine www.aramcoexpats.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teecer (talk • contribs) 22:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC) (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for notifying me. I'm glad you find the picture useful. If you can point me to the article when it is available, it will be greatly appreciated. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 05:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Valued image candidates/2010t20final.jpg

Hi. Thanks for your comment at Commons:Valued image candidates/2010t20final.jpg, as you can tell, I'm new around here, so I'm trying to get a feel for this sort of thing. By your argument (it could be any cricket match), would you disagree with the current Valued Image: File:Neste Oil Rally 2010 - Jari-Matti Latvala in shakedown.jpg, which is "considered the most valued image on Commons within the scope: 2010 Rally Finland." As, after all, that image too could be from any rally, not just that one? Do the criteria state it has to be instantly identifiable as being from that scope? (This isn't an accusation, simply a question.) Kind regards, Harrias (talk) 22:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, I would have opposed this candidate with a similar argument. There should be something in the picture explicitly telling about the scope. If it is impossible to guess the scope by looking at the picture, then it can't be a good VI. --Eusebius (talk) 22:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for your help! Harrias (talk) 06:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Thumbnail bug

Can you link me to one, and to the bug report? 'Twould be a good idea to let people know, so things don't end up deleted by accident while this is being fixed. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussions on the VP:1 and 2 (with examples), Bugzilla: 24834. --Eusebius (talk) 15:49, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. --Eusebius (talk) 16:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

suppression image eglise marseille

Bonjour Eusebius, De mémoire, il me semble que l'image File:Eglise_SDJ_Marseille_France.JPG avait déjà été supprimée. Et j'ai du rajouter la 'mauvaise'. Afin de ne pas renouveler mon erreur, j'aimerais comprendre pourquoi celle-ci est supprimée dans la mesure où j'ai fait cette photo personnellement parmi d'autres, dans les memes conditions, sous la meme licence (enfin je crois) sur le meme sujet repris dans multiple pays, alors qu'elle est la seule (de mon fichier) a être supprimée ? Si ma mémoire est toujours bonne, il est question d'un accord d'architecte. Le bureau d'architecture étant le même pour toutes les chapelles mormones du monde, celui de Salt Lake City, je ne vois pas pourquoi celle de Marseille ne 'passe' pas ? Merci d'éclairer ma lanterne :) --Maithe38 17:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Bonjour. C'est parce que la loi n'est pas la même aux Etats-Unis et en France. Aux Etats-Unis, on peut librement photographier (et publier les photos) les bâtiments se trouvant sur la voie publique. En France, non, c'est une violation du droit d'auteur de l'architecte. Pour les bâtiments (et oeuvres d'art) situés en France (et dont le créateur n'est pas décédé depuis plus de 70 ans), il faut donc une autorisation écrite de l'architecte pour publier ces photographies sous une licence libre (ou sous n'importe quelle licence d'ailleurs). En l'absence d'une telle autorisation, de telles photos ne peuvent être publiées. Vous pourrez trouver des détails ici : Commons:Liberté de panorama. Cordialement, --Eusebius (talk) 17:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

ex-VI

Bonjour Eusebius, Désolée de t'ennuyer encore avec des histoires de VI... La précédente VI pour Francfort-sur-le-Main a été détrônée, mais l'image a toujours son label, que VICbot ne lui a pas retiré. Plus de détails : Commons:Valued image candidates/Cityscape Frankfurt.jpg. Peux-tu jeter un œil ? Merci, --Myrabella (talk) 06:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Voilà ! --Eusebius (talk) 08:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Merci ! Je retiendrai la manip, mais je pensais que VICbot s'en chargeait. --Myrabella (talk) 13:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Oui... Moi aussi... --Eusebius (talk) 14:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Utilisation de photo

Bonjour,

J'ai utilisé votre photo de la loggia du palais du Grand Gouvernement, dans le Château des ducs de Bretagne à Nantes, pour illustrer un billet d'un blog. Ce blog est à usage restreint (familial), donc je n'en communiquerai pas l'adresse, mais sachez que je n'ai pas oublié de vous attribuer la photo.

Merci.

84.103.192.133 15:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Pas de problème, merci de me l'avoir signalé ! Cordialement, --Eusebius (talk) 16:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Biting the newbies

Hi Eusebius, could you please not bite the newbies like you did at User talk:NInTeNdO? This nlwp user is working on the portal Vietnam, but you scared him away. Now he's uploading his stuff locally and we want people to use Commons! Multichill (talk) 14:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi. The out-of-scope template doesn't bite so much. If the tagged material is actually out-of-scope, I don't see the problem. If it is not (but it is still unused as of now, unlike the three other "flaming texts" only displayed on his user page, and not covered with our usual scope exceptions IMO), it is not about biting the newbies but about making a mistake about content usefulness. --Eusebius (talk) 08:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Why do we even have templates if using them is considered aggressive? Rama (talk) 10:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I have been on the verge of biting NInTeNdO (talk · contributions · Statistics) too. I was just awaiting his next uncategorised category or "not extremely useful" image. --Foroa (talk) 13:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

And when all deletion requests such as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Denvoi.gif will be executed, he might feel bitten even more. No idea what we can do to show more hospitability. --Foroa (talk) 14:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Pics

File:Basilio Arturo Ignacio Lami Dozo.JPG

Hi, I don't understand. The pictures of Basilio Lami Dozo, Omar Graffigna and the second "junta" were taken before 1985 in Argentina. So I added {{PD-AR-Photo}}. You're wrong when you say : "This is not a photograph, therefore the license tag is wrong. This kind of work falls into the public domain after 50 years, if I'm not mistaken" --Turkmenistan (talk) 18:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Why is it wrong to say that they're not photographs? You say yourself that they're taken from a TV program. Anyway, please contribute in the deletion request pages, where the discussion is. --Eusebius (talk) 19:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

This Picture was scanned fron an article of Clarin (an argentine newspaper) in 1981. I don't uderstand why are you changing my editions. --Turkmenistan (talk) 14:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't revert all of them. I left the clarifications/corrections you made, and I forwarded them to the relevant page. I only restored the deletion template, because only the closing admin should remove it. --Eusebius (talk) 14:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Overwritten image

File:Archaeoindris.jpg

Hi, you mentioned on my talk page that an update to an image I made (File:Archaeoindris.jpg) was an overwrite. The old image is inaccurate, so I don't see how it is a "useful" version. Rather than just deleting it, I chose to update it with a newer version which is showing the same subject. Because I'd rather not have to go through the trouble of deleting the old version and uploading the new version under a different file name, I'm going to upload the new version again. Smokeybjb (talk) 00:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

No you're not... By overwriting this image, formally you kind of remove from Commons an image that you have released under a license which is not revokable. You cannot do that, and the image can be deleted only if it is obviously out of the scope of the project (and it cannot be as long as it is used on the Wikipedias). Plus, you also silently force the replacement of the image on all the pages currently using it. We cannot allow that, because Commons is not the place where editorial choices are made. The right thing to do is to upload the new version separately, and to change the picture in the Wikipedias (or other projects) if and where you think it is justified. This way, your changes will be visible to the other editors of the articles, and they can be discussed. And the editorial choices will be made on the relevant projects. You are also free to 1) document the image as being possibly inaccurate in the Commons image description and/or 2) submit the original version for deletion (for lack of educational interest), only if no other project uses it anymore.

When you receive a standard warning of the project, ignoring it or telling the warning administrator that you will perform the "irregular" action anyway is rarely the best way of doing things. --Eusebius (talk) 19:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I just thought it would be easier to replace the image. The old one is of no use to the Wikipedia articles, as it is inaccurate (as a result of my prior lack of knowledge about the animal, not any historical interpretations of the species). I've seen other authors who also make illustrations update their old images with new ones rather than upload them as new files, so I didn't think there would be any problem with this. I'll try to delete the old version, since there's clearly no use for it on the Wikipedia pages it is currently on. Smokeybjb (talk) 13:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see that you've protected the file, so it can't be nominated for deletion for a while. I've uploaded the new version as a new file (File:Archaeoindris fontoynonti.jpg). Smokeybjb (talk) 14:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The file is now unprotected, you can nominate if you want. --Eusebius (talk) 14:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Archaeoindris.jpg

File:Archaeoindris.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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

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

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

Smokeybjb (talk) 15:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I told you it couldn't be deleted (for this reason) if it is still used by someone on some WMF project. --Eusebius (talk) 15:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean some foreign language Wikipedias? I'll replace them if I have to, because the image doesn't have any encyclopedic value if it's inaccurate. Smokeybjb (talk) 15:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It means any wikipedia, wikicite, wiktionary... ("foreign" is a rather empty word on Commons, which is international and multilingual). You can replace, but please wait a few days before nominating, so that users on the local projects have the opportunity to react to your edit before the image gets deleted. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 17:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Por que minhas imagens são excluídas?

Salut pourquoi mes images sont effacées ? je veux savoir ce qu'elles necesitent pourqu'elles soient pas .J'ai rester trés triste .Si il est necessaire de faire quelque chose s'il vous plait avise moi et merci beaucoup

Ganesh1 ^Aqui 18:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Which image exactly do you think I have unduly deleted?

(automatic translation) Que imagem exatamente você acha que eu mal apagado? --Eusebius (talk) 19:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Why you should make mass deletions

Re: Commons:Deletion requests/File:50peso85.JPG: your 60 separate nominations in Commons:Deletion requests/2010/09/02 are not helpful. If you are not willing to put in the work, it is better to let such quite harmless photos be until someone else comes along. See Jameslwoodward's complaint for one of the reasons why. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I know that (and that's partly why I don't spend my time making multiple nominations). I also had (several times) the opportunity to compare the overheads of 1) making a mass deletion request of 60 pictures and 2) mass closing 60 individual and similar DRs. No contest, closing individual DRs is easier. But the most significant drawback of the individual DRs is somewhere else (on the uploader's talk page). --Eusebius (talk) 09:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

As long as DRs of photos Argentinian art are closed as kept, I would not worry about coins anyway. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Worrying is bad for my health anyway. --Eusebius (talk) 09:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Argentine Currency and Mass DRs

I hate to add to a comment by Pieter, but: I raised the Mass DR issue at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Mass_DRs and got no comments except his. Since he cannot be the closing Admin, he really isn't affected. Perhaps if several admins got together, we could get a better way -- one that we certainly need.

Meanwhile, the next time you get the urge to delete many related files, I suggest you use AWB to add {{Delete}} to the list of files -- it's much faster than the "Nominate for deletion" script and saves the closing admin a click and several page loads on every file. Thanks, Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Oops -- I didn't see Pieter's comment above until I saved this -- I was reacting to his comment on one of the DRs -- doesn't change my thought, though. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sorry about the unnecessary workload but manually editing dozens of files is really tedious. And AFAIK, AWB works only on Windows... I remember talking several times (in the last 2 years) with some tech guys about how wonderful it would be to have an integrated tool to make mass deletion requests, but apparently it's not trivial at all. --Eusebius (talk) 15:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

You're right, AWB works only with IE installed, although it doesn't actually visibly use IE -- it runs in its own windows. Maybe the next time you run across a long list, you could let me know and I'll do the nom. AWB is really the way to do it quickly. -- You can hand AWB either a category name or a whole list and it will work from either, inserting whatever you like. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll keep that in mind and ping an AWB user next time. --Eusebius (talk) 21:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

More information, less sanctions

Thank you for nothing.

--Garciman73 (talk) 21:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

21 messages on your talk page, zero reaction from you. --Eusebius (talk) 21:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Copyright/source question

File:Scarlet Ibis (2).JPG

Hi. Any advice on how to handle this case? Cheers. Lycaon (talk) 07:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Well, at least we should restore the author's name. Apart from that, we could leave it alone, but in april 2009 OTRS permission was mandatory already. So we could also be regular stubborn admins and demand an OTRS e-mail for the image to stay (and warn the user about removing problem tags, we have a message template for that). Apparently this user knows how to obtain OTRS permission e-mails, so I don't see why this one should be an exception. Also, the file is currently unused, so there's no particular incentive to keep it in spite of possible permission issues.

That's my opinion anyway, but it won't bother me if the image stays because you decide not to deteriorate your relationships with other users. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 07:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll ruminate on this one a while ;-). Lycaon (talk) 07:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

PS: my last comment is general and not directed to you in particular. --Eusebius (talk) 12:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Though I didn't initiate the deletion request, the reaction made me not feel too sorry for the deterioration of the relationship with this particular user. It is sad how some users immediately retaliate. Regards. Lycaon (talk) 07:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately this is not particularly unusual... --Eusebius (talk) 07:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:PCVaidya.jpg

File:PCVaidya.jpg

Hi, thanks for leaving me this message, the file I have uploaded here is from en.wikipedia, where the original uploader has assigned this license tag. Hope after reviewing the original file on en.wiki you will rethink about tagging it here. Thanks.--Dsvyas (talk) 20:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Please have a look yourself at the file on en.WP, and observe that the uploader never said that he was the photographer. He didn't even use a "self" template. In fact he didn't say anything about where the image comes from. This file is unsourced, plain and simple... --Eusebius (talk) 05:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you. Its not uploaded originally by me, so can't comment much. Am trying to seek permission to use another image of him, can you please leave this for a couple of more days, if I get permission, I will replace this by new image, or else, you can delete it.--Dsvyas (talk) 11:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

OK. As it is now, it shouldn't be deleted before September 27st. --Eusebius (talk) 11:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

copyright violations

Multiples copyright violations by this user. 201.40.187.146 06:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to nominate files for deletion if you think it is necessary. --Eusebius (talk) 06:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: File source is not properly indicated: File:Kouta.jpg

Hello. I think that you should feel free to delete this picture. I have moved it from the English Wikipedia and I don't know the original source. Thank you, --патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 05:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, noted. --Eusebius (talk) 10:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

notice

File:Portal of IAU of Arak.jpg

Hi. I provided the paper of let of public relations of IAU of arak. how can i send it to you or mardetanha?

Send it to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org and tell mardetanha about it.

also. please look at this joke picture & delete it.Jack66 (talk) 23:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you remember being banned for using multiple accounts? Is THIS a joke? --Eusebius (talk) 05:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

File:USIM bluefish technologies.jpg

Bonjour Eusebius,
En ce qui me concerne, l'image de la carte Sim de chez Bluefish n'a que peu d'importance : je l'avais ramenée sur commons de WP:en pour illustrer l'article fr:carte à puce. Elle n'y est plus utilisée, car j'avais trouvé une meilleure illustration sous la forme du schéma File:GSM Micro SIM Card vs. GSM Mini Sim Card - Break Apart.svg. Si tu penses qu'elle enfreint le principe des œuvres dérivées, je ne m'opposerais pas à son retrait.
En revanche, tu soulèves une question intéressante : dans ce domaine en particulier (les cartes à puce), quasiment toutes les illustrations possibles avec de vraies cartes sont forcément des œuvres dérivées... car (en particulier dans le domaine des télécartes), quasiment toutes sont conçues comme des supports publicitaire. Pour information, même cette bonne vieille fr:Carte Vitale est un modèle déposé.
Mis à part sur certaines images du type File:Karta Simteligent.jpg (d'ailleurs très floue...), il risque fort d'y avoir une purge massive... Ou alors comment justifier les exceptions ? Zeugma fr (talk) 20:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Bonjour. En résumé, on ne pourra (on ne devrait) garder que celles qui ont un design très simple (suffisamment pour rentrer dans les clous de {{PD-textlogo}}) ou pour lesquelles on a pu avoir une autorisation. Donc oui, d'une manière générale, la quantité de contenus présents sur Commons et sur Wikipédia qui ne sont pas réellement accessibles sous licence libre et qui devraient être retirés est effrayante. En ce qui concerne la carte Vitale, elle serait sûrement conservée au motif qu'on la considérerait comme trop simple pour être éligible au droit d'auteur. En effet, en droit français de la propriété intellectuelle, Commons s'intéressera uniquement au droit d'auteur (resp. uniquement au copyright dans d'autres pays), à l'exclusions des autres protections comme les brevets, les marques et les "dessins et modèles". Ces derniers ne relèvent pas du droit d'auteur, et l'on peut déposer un dessin ou un modèle même s'il n'est pas éligible au droit d'auteur. À noter toutefois, les contributeurs de Commons (et plus encore les contributeurs des Wikipédias) seront à mon avis bien plus prompts qu'un juge à décider qu'une œuvre est inéligible au droit d'auteur... Cordialement, --Eusebius (talk) 21:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Utilisation photos massif de la Meije

Mr. Piolle,

J'ai decouvert votre tres belle photo du massif de la Meije sur wikipedia et je souhaiterais l'utiliser pour la décoration d'une boutique que nous allons ouvrir en Grèce.

C'est une boutique de produits cosmetiques Suisses dont les composants proviennent de flaure des alpages suisses.

Je souhaiterais donc savoir sous quelles conditions je peux utiliser cette photo et aussi me procurer cette photo en haute resolution (j'ai besoin d'une meilleure resolution que ce qui est proposé sur wiki.)

Vous pouvez me repondre sur mon mail.

Si vous le souhaitez je peux envoyer les plans de la boutique et l'emplassement exact ou va se trouver votre photo, si vous l'acceptez biensur.

Je vous remercie par avance de l'attention que vous porterez a ma demande et vous souhaites de belles prises de vue tout au long de votre vie!

Cordialement,

Nicolas Bakas

Bonjour, je vous contacte sur votre e-mail comme vous le suggerez. --Eusebius (talk) 20:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

using your image

Hi Eusebius,

Just letting you know that I'm using one of your images for my educational site, Essential Humanities, on the "Medieval Architecture" page (http://www.essentialhumanities.net/arch3.html). It's in the "Gothic Architecture" section.

Thanks for making this image available :)

Ewangowan (talk) 15:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for this notification. I'm glad you find this image useful. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 16:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikiporno

Bonjour. Je ne vois pas l’intérêt encyclopédique de ces images pornographiques. Comment justifiez-vous leur présence sur un site facilement accessible par des enfants? Est-ce que tout est permis sur Commons? --gilbertus (talk) 13:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Please read: Commons n’est pas censuré. Merci! Those photographs show just humans and we are not living in the 18th century. --Saibo (Δ) 13:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Non, tout n'est pas permis sur Commons, et en particulier il n'est pas permis de justifier la vandalisation du système de classification par une opinion personnelle (de plus non liée à la catégorisation). Je suis sûr que vous saurez trouver les policies qui régissent les contenus acceptés ou non sur Commons, observer vous-même que la pornographie n'est pas exclue, et mener votre propre réflexion sur la nature éducative ou non de ces images (question annexe, si ces images n'ont pas de valeur éducative au sens large à vos yeux, quelles autres photographies illustreraient mieux les concepts représentés ?). S'il vous semble qu'une image n'a pas sa place sur Commons en regard des textes qui fondent le projet (et donc pas uniquement par rapport à votre opinion personnelle ou à vos goûts, que je respecte bien évidemment), la chose à faire n'est pas de vandaliser les pages correspondantes en retirant de l'information (actions pour lesquelles vous seriez bloqué sans la moindre hésitation à la première récidive), mais de proposer les contenus à la suppression. Ceci a déjà été fait à de nombreuses reprises concernant les oeuvres de M. Klashorst. Après de longs et houleux débats (au sein desquels j'ai parfois participé, en faveur de la suppression), certaines ont été supprimées, et d'autres conservées. Si vous proposez une de ces photographies à la suppression, je vous invite donc à être extrêmement prudent : si la motivation de la demande de suppression n'est pas un élément nouveau n'ayant pas été abordé dans les discussions de suppression passées, ou si elle n'est pas strictement fondée sur les règles d'inclusion (ou autres) du projet Commons, la demande de suppression sera fermée en speedy keep. Confiant dans votre compréhension, --Eusebius (talk) 13:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Je comprends qu’une image puisse avoir une valeur éducative comme celle ci-contre; elle a sa place dans une revue spécialisée. Je conteste le libre accès à ces images sur un site Internet gratuit comme Commons. De plus, elles encouragent le voyeurisme et l’exhibitionnisme et certaines dévalorisent l’image de la femme.--gilbertus (talk) 14:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

why?

Mr bahadory said me that send commons her permission and some original pictures. I respect you recover File:Mostafa_Mohammad-Najjar.JPG but you inspite your, not only didnt recover that image, delete other pictures! why?Gire 3pich2005 (talk) 22:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

When a permission e-mail has been sent for a picture, you should put {{OTRS pending}} to warn us about that, so the picture doesn't get deleted (as explained on the message I must have issued when tagging the picture). This template wasn't there, so I didn't know there was an e-mail in the system. I'll try to find it and if it is satisfactory I'll restore the image. Please don't hesitate to tell me if other e-mails have been sent. --Eusebius (talk) 05:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't find any e-mail coming from a Mr Bahadory or making reference to the file you quote. Maybe it was sent to another address? --Eusebius (talk) 05:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

please see this mail:(address removed) . it sent about 4 or 5 days ago. I guess. Gire 3pich2005 (talk) 20:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've found the e-mail, I'm looking at it. --Eusebius (talk) 06:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

hi. what is the conclusion of analys of agreement of Mr bahadory? I am waiting.Gire 3pich2005 (talk) 09:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

So far he hasn't answered my message. --Eusebius (talk) 16:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

hi. I called to him. he siad didnt receive any e,ail from commons. please send him an email again. I dont know your process but I thank that agreement was enough. but know he attention more that past. please send him again. thank you.Gire 3pich2005 (talk) 16:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I've just sent the e-mail again. --Eusebius (talk) 21:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

revert

[26] Pourquoi, c'est pas ça finalement ? --Eusebius (talk) 21:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Pour les faits, oui c'est bien ça, c'est une photo canadienne, de Henderson, le pont est de 1931, etc. Mais pour la conclusion, je me suis aperçu que j'étais en train de raisonner comme si l'auteur était une société (auquel cas la photo serait en effet dans le domaine public au Canada du moment que sa création est antérieure à 1960). C'est fréquemment le cas, par exemple, pour les photos publiées dans les journaux, etc. Mais bien que Henderson agissait comme éditeur de ces cartes postales, en y pensant, je me suis dit que dans ce cas particulier, il est très plausible que l'auteur soit personnellement Henderson en tant qu'individu (auquel cas ses photos ne seraient dans le domaine public au Canada que 50 après sa mort). Or, je ne suis pas parvenu à trouver sa date de décès, mais un très mince indice sur un site pourrait laisser penser que ce pourrait être après le début des années 1960, juste pour que ses photos ne soient pas encore dans le domaine public. Bref, autrement dit, je me suis dit que tu avais raison de dire que nous n'avons peut-être pas assez d'information pour pouvoir conserver la photo hors de tout doute possible. Cela dit, je pense quand même qu'il y a de bonnes chances que cette photo soit antérieure à 1949, étant donné l'apparence de la photo et le fait que bien des photos de Henderson sont antérieures à cette date, ce qui ferait que cette photo serait quand même dans le domaine public au Canada de toutes façons, peu importe la date de décès de l'auteur. Mais puisqu'on ne dispose pas pour l'instant de mention explicite de la date de création de la photo, on ne peut rien affirmer avec certitude. Et ça me semblait un peu long et peut-être inutile d'expliquer cela sur la page de la proposition de suppression. D'où mon auto-revert. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Je pense que tu pourrais tout de même laisser les informations dont tu disposes, même sans conclusion. --Eusebius (talk) 05:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

File:UA Flight 175 hits WTC south tower 9-11.jpeg

Dear Eusebius,

Did you see this powerful picture which just entered Commons? It could be a Quality image if someone chooses to nominate it as such. The resolution is quite reasonable too. I don't think there is a single Commons picture of any of the jets actually hitting the 9/11 towers...until yesterday. Just to let you know about this photo. The uploader seems to know someone on flickr. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Valuable image indeed. It cannot qualify for the QI status, because 1) it is too small, and 2) it is not the work of a Wikimedian (AFAIK). Maybe it is possible to find a Valued Image scope for it, I don't know. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 07:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment: OK. That's fine Eusebius. May I ask I final question? Does WikiCommons run on GMT time? I notice the present day changes to the next day from 24:00 to 00:00 hours at 5:00 PM in the BC, Canada/Oregon/California Pacific time zone. I don't know where the 7 hour time difference appears to 12 PM. Do you know...or is that the difference to the GMT timezone in Britain? I never asked this question before sorry. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Hum, I'm not very much into Commons technicalities, but it seems that some dates are localized according to your time zone, and some aren't. Since I only have a 1h or 2h difference with GMT, I don't usually observe date switch issues. --Eusebius (talk) 09:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to ask another Admin then here. But thank you for your reply. --Leoboudv (talk) 18:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

QI and VI: help

Bonjour Eusebius!
S'il vous plaît regarde User_talk:Lycaon#Category_.3F et aide.
On demande l'administrateur pour le réglage.

Respectueusement, Georges --George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:30, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Is it ok now? --Eusebius (talk) 21:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Lycaon (talk) 21:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Salut Guillaume. Il y a encore le MediaWiki:QIhelper.js, per ceci. Merci. Lycaon (talk) 08:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Done --Eusebius (talk) 09:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

VICpromoted role

Bonjour Eusebius, Naguère, on pouvait préciser "creator" ou "uploader" dans un paramètre "role=" du template "VICpromoted" mais cela ne semble plus fonctionner. Je voudrais par exemple transmettre la dernière "VIC promoted" que j'ai nominée à l'utilisateur qui a téléchargé l'image. Mais même en changeant la valeur du paramètre, le rôle reste à "nominator". Merci de ton temps, --Myrabella (talk) 15:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Ca sent pas super bon. Je ne suis pas du tout calé en templates... [27] --Eusebius (talk) 15:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

OK de nouveau. Merci pour ton action indirecte. --Myrabella (talk) 20:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Deleted images

Hi, I was wondering why exactly the images that are mentioned on my talk page were deleted. They are imported from fa.wiki. You can think of fa.wiki as a source for free (GFDL) material, like any other side on the internet. The files were imported and a permanent link the original source (fa.wiki) was provided. I am a crat on fa.wiki and personally checked and confirmed the validity of permissions from the original owner. What else should I do. P.S. The original owner is very old can't send emails and etc.

regards,

Behaafarid (talk) 22:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. But fa.WP is not a source! There is always a prior source, unless the file is the own work of an identified wikimedian (and please believe that it is not about the Farsi wiki, we also delete very frequently material coming from the English Wikipedia without enough evidence). The files were apparently deleted for missing such a source. It can be the case if the image page does not state much more than "coming from fa.WP and uploaded by X", for instance. Here you say that you know the "owner" of the images. But what we need is the creator of the images (the photographer), is it the same person? It is from her that we need a permission. You say that you have "checked and confirmed" some kind of permission. We have a procedure (for both Commons and the Wikipedias) to check them, you can see details here. Basically, it is all about sending the permission material to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org and waiting for a confirmation.

I hope I have answered some of your questions. If you still have any, please ask them, but be precise so that I can be precise too. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 07:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Sudbury Neutrino Observatory.artist concept of detector.jpg

I am not able to understand whether this image en:File:Sudbury Neutrino Observatory.artist concept of detector.jpg from english wiki is eligilble to be moved to commons. Can you please check? --Sreejith K (talk) 06:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't know either, the statement refers to "any additional conditions stated in the comments of the desired images", so the statement in itself does not guarantee that it is equivalent to a free license. I would ask COM:AN for further advice. --Eusebius (talk) 07:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I will post this quesion there. --Sreejith K (talk) 09:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

La vie des ex (VI-demoted)

Bonjour Eusebius, J'ai traité à la main le label d'une ex-VI qui vent d'être "demoted" ([28]) comme tu me l'avais montré pour le cas de Francfort ([29]). Est-ce normal que ces images continuent à figurer dans les galeries VI par scope ? Car du coup il va y avoir deux images pour Dilma Roussef ici et il y a déjà deux images pour Francfort là. --Myrabella (talk) 08:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Salut. La page Commons:Valued images by scope est regénérée toutes les 12h par EuseBot, normalement cet après-midi ça devrait être mis à jour. J'essaierai de penser à vérifier que c'est le cas, mais sinon laisse-moi un petit message. --Eusebius (talk) 08:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Je viens de regarder, les dernières "former-VI" apparaissent toujours dans la galerie VI où elles avaient été classées du temps de leur label. A Dimla Roussef et à Francfort s'ajoute cette punaise, toujours affichée dans Commons:Valued images by topic/Life forms/Animals/Arthropods/Bugs (Hemiptera), où est aussi la nouvelle VI affrontée en MVR (tant d'efforts alors que l'infobox de l'article de la fr:WP montre toujours une veille image de 80ko datée 2005 — c'est un aparté, je regarderai cela après.) => Faut-il ouvrir un ticket d'anomalie sur la PDD de Dschwen ?

Non, moi je parlais de la liste "by scope", dans les galeries "by topic" effectivement il faut (pour l'instant) retirer les images à la main. Dschwen n'a d'ailleurs jamais touché à ces galeries, c'est moi qui ai tout codé (à partir de son code pour les QI).

Done pour les trois en question. --Myrabella (talk) 08:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Je suis tombée au passage sur Category:Former valued images, et il me semble bien que tous les retraits de label ont été faits à la main. Ce serait bien d'avoir une procédure automatisée car le cas risque de se présenter plus souvent à mesure que le projet mûrit...

Je note, mais j'ai de moins en moins de temps libre pour Commons (même plus le temps de prendre des photos), et Daniel est fort occupé également, donc les requêtes risquent de s'entasser...

Idem... --Myrabella (talk) 08:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Au fait, les 3 dernières VI "demoted" ont été classées (automatiquement :-) dans Category:Valued images demoted in 2009 alors qu'elles ont été détrônées en 2010, même si elles avaient été couronnées en 2009, mais c'est un détail. --Myrabella (talk) 06:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Je note aussi. Mais tout ça m'inquiète moins que le fait que d'anciens habitués du projet VI renomment des images, en suppriment ou changent des scopes sans s'inquiéter le moins du monde de ce que ça peut avoir comme conséquence. Ca, ça me désespère, mais à partir de cette semaine j'ai décidé que je n'avais plus le temps de passer derrière donc le projet restera dans un état incohérent jusqu'à ce que le bot soit amélioré... --Eusebius (talk) 07:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

J'espère simplement ne pas avoir trop rajouté au désordre ambiant. --Myrabella (talk) 08:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Je ne pense pas ! À plus, --Eusebius (talk) 20:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

L'homme qui n'a pas les yeux en face des trous

Bonjour,

j'ai encore commis une confusion de personnes (ça m'apprendra à uploader trop d'images) en prenant Amanda Sthers pour Ludivine Sagnier. J'ai reuploadé l'image sous le bon nom.

Pourriez-vous, svp, transformer cette image :

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ludivine_Sagnier_Cannes_2010_2_.jpg

en redirection vers celle-ci :

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Amanda_Sthers_Cannes_2010.jpg

(en conservant l'autorisation, bien sûr)

merci, cordialement, JJ Georges (talk) 12:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

OK mais dans ce cas, pas besoin de ré-uploader l'image, il suffit de demander un renommage en laissant une redirection (c'est plus simple pour l'admin, et ça évite de multiplier les fichiers sur les disques durs). --Eusebius (talk) 17:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

thanx

Hi. thank you to helped me. if I undrestood OTRS in past. you hadnt these bothers. sorry about myself. but I know about OTRS .

so, if you registered his agreement, please recover other pictures of him:

File:Mostafa_Mohammad-Najjar.JPG

File:Quds_Day-2010-Iran_2.jpg

File:Quds_Dat-2010-Iran_1.jpg

also, If you agree, please delete File:Jalāl ad-Dīn Kazzāzi and mostafa eshghdoost.jpg. it isnt important and I upload it just for our disscussion.Gire 3pich2005 (talk) 23:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. File:Quds_Day-2010-Iran_2.jpg and File:Quds_Dat-2010-Iran_1.jpg shouldn't be restored (the permission e-mail cannot be accepted) because they are derivative works and the photographer is not the only copyright owner. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 07:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I dont know this rule. I must sudy it. but probably you right.(unfotunatly! :) ) any way, thank you. either pron of pictures that I received from him is important for myself.

one question:any time i want upload his pictures from him, i must just mention {{OTRS|2010093010001906}} or he must send email to commons?Gire 3pich2005 (talk) 20:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The e-mail he has sent only covers these few pictures. It is possible for him to send a "generic" e-mail covering all his work uploaded by you, if you and him agree on that. --Eusebius (talk) 20:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Guy Lebègue Pictures

Bonjour Eusebius. Pourquoi tous ces déplacements de galeries de photos prises par Guy Lebègue, vers la page d'un utilisateur ? Les galeries avaient été placées dans l'article Guy Lebègue, comme les galeries de photos de l'ESA placées directement dans l'article ESA. Pourquoi ce n'est pas pareil dans ce cas ? Pourquoi ne pas en avoir discuté avant ? On ne s'y retrouve plu du tout ! --Cordialement, Kasos_Fr, (talk) 10:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Bonjour. Une explication (lapidaire) figurait à chaque fois dans le résumé de mes actions, et les discussions ont eu lieu lorsque les règles de fonctionnement du projet ont été conçues et à chaque fois qu'elles ont évolué. Ceci dit, pour répondre en bref à votre question sur la différence entre les galeries de l'ESA et celle de M. Lebègue : en soi, classer les photos de l'ESA dans l'article de l'ESA, ça a un intérêt éducatif pour les projets de la fondation. Une personne faisant une recherche sur l'ESA s'attendra probablement à trouver ce genre de choses. D'un autre côté, M. Guy Lebègue n'est pas présent sur les projets de la fondation comme un photographe, et ses oeuvres sont du même niveau et intérêt que celles des (autres) contributeurs wikimedia. Une personne faisant une recherche sur Guy Lebègue ne s'attend pas à tomber sur une photo de TGV ou sur des photos de fleurs, mais plutôt sur des portraits et des illustrations directement liées à ce qui fait de M. Lebègue un personnage suffisamment notable pour figurer dans Wikipedia et sur Commons. Vous conviendrez avec moi qu'une photographie comme celle que je place ici n'a absolument aucun lien avec le curriculum de M. Lebègue, le seul lien étant que c'est lui qui a pris la photo : une personne faisant une recherche sur Eva Yaneva n'a pas forcément d'intérêt pour les contenus que nous avons sur M. Lebègue, et une personne s'intéressant à M. Lebègue n'aura probablement que faire d'une photo d'Eva Yaneva. Dans une moindre mesure c'est le même raisonnement qui s'applique pour les autres photos, et ce même lorsqu'il s'agit de l'ESA ou d'astronomie -- à moins bien sûr qu'il ne s'agisse par exemple de la photographie d'un objet dont M. Lebègue est le concepteur, auquel cas elle aurait sans doute sa place dans la galerie à son nom.

Au final, les galeries et catégories listant les photos et les images par auteur, lorsque cet auteur n'est pas présent sur Commons/Wikipedia à cause de cette oeuvre, sont rangées dans les "espaces personnels" des contributeurs. Par exemple, les photos que j'ai prises sont dans cette catégorie (et à une époque j'avais une galerie dans mon espace personnel). Je vous invite à lire Commons:Galleries et Commons:User-specific galleries, templates and categories policy (il y a une version française à chaque fois, mais il est possible que la version anglaise soit plus complète). Cordialement, --Eusebius (talk) 14:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Tout ça c'est très compliqué, et je n'ai pas trop de temps pour m'y plonger à fond ; je ne suis pas spécialiste de Wikipédia comme vous. Dites-moi si ce que j'ai commencé à faire convient, avant que je ne continue : incorporation de premières photos dans la catégorie éxistante Category:Guy Lebègue ; retrait d'une première galerie du User:Kasos_fr (les photos prises par Guy Lebègue n'ont pas à figurer chez lui) : et réincorporation avec légende appropriée dans l'article encyclopédique Guy Lebègue.--Cordialement, Kasos_Fr, (talk) 15:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Non ça ne va pas : CES PHOTOS N'ONT RIEN A FAIRE DANS UNE GALERIE OU UNE CATEGORIE SUR GUY LEBEGUE, elles ne parlent pas de Guy Lebègue, elles ont juste été prises par lui... --Eusebius (talk) 18:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Alors, expliquez-moi ce que je dois faire !--Cordialement, Kasos_Fr, (talk) 19:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Je vous ai expliqué, et j'ai même fait mieux : je l'ai fait à votre place. En retour, vous avez défait mes actions et m'avez laissé un message m'expliquant que vous n'aviez "pas trop de temps" pour comprendre les détails. Comprenez que c'est énervant, quand vous n'avez pas de temps c'est le mien que vous dépensez... --Eusebius (talk) 20:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Je vous remercie de l'attention que vous avez porté à vos dernières modifications. C'est beaucoup mieux comme ça, je pense que c'est un bon compromis. --Eusebius (talk) 08:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Merci pour vos remerciements (c'est rare de la part d'un administrateur, méritant d'être souligné). Je pense que dans l'article Guy Lebègue, je peux maintenant mettre des rubriques contenant des galeries par thèmes, en rapport avec ses activités (en tant que ses oeuvres photographiques), les photos ayant des légendes détaillées ?--Cordialement, Kasos_Fr, (talk) 11:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Non, encore une fois non, ça n'a pas sa place ici, je pense que c'est bien comme c'est... Mais s'il y a une galerie Eva Yaneva vous pouvez y rajouter la photo correspondante, s'il y a une galerie Epiphyllum oxypetalum vous pouvez y rajouter les photos correspondantes, et ainsi de suite... (PS pour la terminologie, ce n'est pas un article, sur Commons c'est une galerie). --Eusebius (talk) 12:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, bien compris. Au passage, je note que vous vous intéressez beaucoup à Eva ! C'est une très bonne joueuse, au demeurant très sympa. @+--Cordialement, Kasos_Fr, (talk) 14:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Upload patrol

Hi Eusebius/Archives, As posted in the Village pump I've created a tool enabling us to mark uploads as patrolled systematically with ability to cut out timeframes with From: and Until: stamps, and ability to Hide already patrolled uploads. I noticed you were previously active or interested in this and invite you to install the userscript and continue this way. See also COM:RUP. If not already request patroller right and confirm your Wikimedia account with the Toolserver as this is required. Feel free to contact me with any questions or feedback on my talk page, in the Village pump post or report bugs on the Tools feedback page –Krinkle^talk 16:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your work. I'm afraid it is unlikely I will be very active again regarding RUP, but should I spend some time patrolling again, I would look more closely at these tools. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 20:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Panoramas

Hi Eusebius. I need your help. I upload 2 panoramas from my city. but I couldnt retouch those. in other side I saw You retouch your Panoramas and then add Template:Retouched picture to them. so I want request you please retouch (fill the blanks)

File:Jahād Grade separation 2.JPG & File:Jahād Grade separation.JPG

and upload them again. thank you a lot.Gire 3pich2005 (talk) 02:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'll see what I can do, but usually the blank margins are cropped, not filled. This might be feasible here, though. I'll come back to you (but I'm very busy these days)--Eusebius (talk) 08:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi again. If you can fill the blanks by softwares likes photo instrument 4, this is very good for I & wiki. thank you.Gire 3pich2005 (talk) 22:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Bad Karma

Bonjour Eusebius!
Category:Bad Karma c'est les artistes connus ou non COM:SCOPE?
Très amical, Georges --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Aucune idée, mais même s'ils ne sont pas très connus ce n'est sans doute pas une raison pour considérer les images comme hors-scope (on n'est pas sur Wikipedia, les critères de notabilité sont plus larges). Elles illustrent un sujet sans doute intéressant pour lequel nous n'avons pas d'autre médias (pas comme ça ou ça, qui ont pourtant été considérées comme pertinentes par rapport au scope et donc conservées). --Eusebius (talk) 14:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

OK --George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Using your photo on a tourist guide!

Hi! Just want to let you know we're using your City Hall Lion photo on a tourist guide for iPhone. Thanks 212.64.174.187 12:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the notice. If you could provide a link to the application, it would be greatly appreciated. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 12:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Greg5pope.jpg

Hello.

Is this file is deleted only because they had a bad description? Is that reason enough? You can get it back? Albertus teolog (talk) 22:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. It was deleted because it has no source (and therefore no evidence that it is in the public domain). Sourcing is a legal requirement, an unsourced document cannot be restored. If you can find a source for the picture, it might be restored (if it is in the public domain, or free for some other reason). --Eusebius (talk) 07:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification. I repeat them to interested illustration. Regards. Albertus teolog (talk) 08:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

From the information I have received indicates that the image comes from St. Paul's Basilica and this is consistent with the licensing of public. Albertus teolog (talk) 08:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Then go to COM:UDEL... --Eusebius (talk) 11:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :-) Albertus teolog (talk) 12:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

CheckUser

I just wanted to drop by to thank you for your assistance in your role as a CheckUser, and to wish you the best of luck in your future endeavors. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 19:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! As a checkuser, I haven't done much... From the beginning I was too busy to take it seriously. --Eusebius (talk) 20:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Deleted images

[Copied from Archives]

Hi, I was wondering why exactly the images that are mentioned on my talk page were deleted. They are imported from fa.wiki. You can think of fa.wiki as a source for free (GFDL) material, like any other side on the internet. The files were imported and a permanent link the original source (fa.wiki) was provided. I am a crat on fa.wiki and personally checked and confirmed the validity of permissions from the original owner. What else should I do. P.S. The original owner is very old can't send emails and etc.

regards,

Behaafarid (talk) 22:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. But fa.WP is not a source! There is always a prior source, unless the file is the own work of an identified wikimedian (and please believe that it is not about the Farsi wiki, we also delete very frequently material coming from the English Wikipedia without enough evidence). The files were apparently deleted for missing such a source. It can be the case if the image page does not state much more than "coming from fa.WP and uploaded by X", for instance. Here you say that you know the "owner" of the images. But what we need is the creator of the images (the photographer), is it the same person? It is from her that we need a permission. You say that you have "checked and confirmed" some kind of permission. We have a procedure (for both Commons and the Wikipedias) to check them, you can see details here. Basically, it is all about sending the permission material to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org and waiting for a confirmation.

I hope I have answered some of your questions. If you still have any, please ask them, but be precise so that I can be precise too. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 07:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The images are from the personal (family) Album of the wife of the deceased (the subject of the picture) that's what I mean by owner. I'll let the permission people know. Behaafarid (talk) 00:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Just for precision, the person we need a permission from is actually not the "owner" of the picture but the copyright holder: photographer, or heirs of the photographer. --Eusebius (talk) 08:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Mujodogane_M_Eckardt.jpg and Mblock2.jpg

Please delete this files. I couldnt complete the info you want to see. thanx.--Okami-san (talk) 15:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Mujodogane Muenchen.jpg

Is it possible to delete my media file. The Quality is horrible.And iwrote wrong name. its silversilver and notmujodogane. --Okami-san (talk) 15:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi. If you want to delete a file, please use the link "nominate for deletion" in the toolbox on the left of the picture. However, "bad quality" is rarely an acceptable reason for deletion. If you want, I can rename the file, though? --Eusebius (talk) 15:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thx for info. But better up to bin. Next month i will make better photos in a shooting. This is only urggggguahhhh :)))) Nice day! --Okami-san (talk) 18:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Modifications récentes par Eusebius

Merci de l'information, je ne le savais pas. Une image particulièrement est utilisée à tout va sur le net, et je l'avais laissé naïvement dans le domaine public. Si je veux changer de licence la seule solution est-elle de la faire supprimer puis de la remettre sur commons avec une nouvelle licence? Ou est-elle désormais à jamais dans le domaine public? Bien cordialement. --Guill37 (talk) 09:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Bonjour. Techniquement, elle est "à jamais" dans le domaine public... sauf si vous n'étiez pas le seul ayant-droit de l'image. Il me semble me souvenir par exemple que j'avais supprimé des photos que vous aviez prises de bâtiments tourangeaux récents, et donc encore protégés par le droit d'auteur de l'architecte. Dans ce cas, l'image ne peut pas être dans le domaine public (ni sous une licence libre) sans autorisation de l'architecte. Mais bon, même dans ce cas-là, lui seul peut aller râler contre les sites web qui exploiteraient cette photographie.

Lorsque vous téléchargez une image sur Commons (à condition que ce soit votre création), elle est forcément sous licence libre, c'est-à-dire que vous donnez l'autorisation à quiconque d'utiliser l'image pour tout usage, y compris commercial et y compris pour en faire des oeuvres dérivées. C'est l'un des principes mêmes de Commons (et de Wikipedia). Néanmoins, un des droits que vous conserverez de toute manière, quelle que soit la licence et même dans le cas du domaine public, c'est votre droit d'être identifié comme l'auteur (droit de paternité). Du coup, si les réutilisations de l'image qui vous "embête" ne respectent pas cela, ça vous donne éventuellement un levier pour les faire retirer. Mais bon, d'expérience, c'est difficile pour un petit particulier de faire valoir ses droits en la matière... N'hésitez pas à me contacter si vous avez des questions sur le sujet. --Eusebius (talk) 12:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

* * * :) * * *

Je vous félicite de Nativité du Christ et bonne année! Je vous souhaite les meilleurs voeux dans une Nouvelle année!
--George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:36, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks George, Merry Christmas to you too. --Eusebius (talk) 17:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to see it

But thanks for what you have done :). Best wishes for the holiday season. Regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Nothing to be sorry about, really! Best wishes to you too. --Eusebius (talk) 10:20, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Mohammad-Reza Rahimi.jpg

If you have OTRS access, could you please check if the OTRS ticket number given in the file description for this image is legit? I see that the uploader here at Commons has a history of copyright problems (and was blocked by you fairly recently), and the image keeps being re-added at en-wiki by a serial sockpuppeteer there. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 16:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I don't have OTRS access anymore, but I foward the info to someone who has and who knows the case. Thanks. --Eusebius (talk) 10:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Nsk92 (talk) 13:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Unidentified Christian motifs ?

Bonjour,

Je viens de remarquer que tu as placé Unidentified Christian motifs sur la photo File:Cathedrale d'Amiens - portail sud de la facade - detail.jpg. Que cherches-tu à identifier ?

De plus, es-tu sur qu’il s’agit du portail sud ? (sauf erreur il s’agit d’un statue à gauche -donc au nord- de la porte principale du portail ouest -portail du jugement dernier-, on la distingue dans le renfoncement au centre ici : File:Amiens fas sochy DSCN3598.JPG ou à la toute gauche là : File:Amiens cathedral 005.JPG).

Cdlt, VIGNERON * ^discut. 16:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Salut. Pour l'aspect unidentified... J'aimerais bien savoir qui est le personnage ! C'est le sujet de la photo mais il n'est pas identifié, et si quelqu'un a l'info elle n'a pas été partagée. Sur la localisation, c'est probable que j'aie fait une erreur (surtout vu l'absence de contexte visuel sur ma photo), je te laisse corriger si tu as une idée précise de la question. Merci en tout cas, --Eusebius (talk) 17:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Apparemment selon l'article Wikipédia, sur les 18 statues, il y a −manque de pot− un doute sur 2 d'entre elles dont la tienne. Donc ta statue est soit Jude, soit Simon (en tout cas, un apôtre). Je viens de demander l'aide du principal auteur de l'article.

Perso, ce qui m’intriguait c'est ce qu'il tient dans la main

.

Cdlt, VIGNERON * ^discut. 20:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Identification (et catégorisation) faite, il s’agit d’Ézéchiel (et donc ce qu’il tient dans la main doit logiquement être son livre). Cdlt, VIGNERON * ^discut. 10:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Merci beaucoup ! --Eusebius (talk) 15:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Yashica photo

Used your Yashica photo in a blog post: http://www.yelvington.com/content/breaking-familiar-frame yelvington 75.76.149.149 19:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification! Glad to see you find this picture useful. --Eusebius (talk) 07:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)