User talk:Verdy p/archive8

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Talk archives: 2006 · 2007 · 2008 · 2009 · 2010 · 2011 · 2012 · 2013 · 2014 · 2015 · 2016 · 2017 · 2018 · 2019: Jan–Jun, Jul–Dec · 2020: Jan–Jun, Jul–Dec · 2021 · 2022 · 2023 · 2024–

For contacting me by email, please see also fr:Utilisateur:verdy_p, or use my talk page at fr:Discussion Utilisateur:verdy_p (on my home wiki): I don't want to monitor changes in all wikis, notably with emails formatted in various languages depending on the source wiki, or from unadministered small wikis harvested by spammers, or dummy "welcome" messages sent by bots). You can write me on my talk page of any Wikimedia wiki, I'll be notified from any Wikimedia wiki (because I'm connected with a SUL-enabled account) even if you can't send emails from all wikis. You should still be able to send emails from my home wiki (preferably in English or French if you can, but you should try to use some automatic online translators for your posts).
Thanks are always welcome: many users forget to do that. But this helps proving that our work is appreciated, and that we just try to do cooperatively our best on this wiki, hopefully without breaking, cancelling or blindly reverting all the patient work made by us or by others, and that some of our possible errors or disagreements can be fixed or negociated easily, without causing major troubles with a few intolerant Wikimedia users (who forget the community rules, and "overreact" for what is a minor issue or just a disagreement of personal opinions on specific topics). There should always exist a way to coexist even in case of disagreement. So don't forget the neutrality and politeness rules of Wikimedia (see for example Category:Wikipedia policies and guidelines).
Please sign and date your posts on my talk page (so that they can also be archived correctly):
Just add four tildes ~~~~ at end of your message, and it will look like this signature (with your name and the new date): verdy_p (talk) 01:13, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Infrastructures du Poitou-Charentes en 2002.png[edit]

Pay attention to copyright
File:Infrastructures du Poitou-Charentes en 2002.png 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 ∙ +/−

--PAC2 (talk) 08:01, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you writing to me ? I've NOT uploaded this image to Commons, and I have not uploaded it elsewhere before it was transfered to Commons by a bot request.
I don't know who created this image. Send your notice this to user "Archeos".
Note that even if there's a visible "copyright" from IGN and BDCarto, this does not mean that the file doesn't have a valid licence. A licence is different from a copyright.
User Archeos says that he obtained the GFDL licence from IAAT which actually claims the authorship: ask him, not me, to prove his assertion.
Note also that BDCarto is a database, not an image. So this cannot apply to the image fle itself which is not a derived database.
And IGN did not produce this image directly: the IAAT produced it from the IGN database, so the author is the IAAT.
verdy_p (talk) 13:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Archeos n'est pas dans l'historique de la page -- PAC2 (talk) 16:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Si, il l'était bel et bien dans l'historique, tel qu'importé dans la page par le bot d'import, en 2008...
Je maintiens que je n'ai jamais créé ce fichier et que Archeos existe bel et bien sur Wikipédia Francophone et que son import sir WP.FR est bel est bien de mui dans son historique (avant que le fichier soit effacé de WP.FR après l'import sur Commons, ce qui a malgré tout été conservé en trace dans SON historique et pas le mien).
Bref tu te plantes encore. Ta demande de suppression sans rien demander à personne était injustifiée car il y avait une licence GFDL valide, non contestée depuis 2008, même s'il y avait une ligen de copyright qui n'est pas une licence bloquante.
Dans tous les fichiers que je publierais sur Commons sous licence GFDL, je pourrais moi aussi mettre MON propre copyright. Ce n'est absolument pas bloquant. Bref tu confonds tout !
Si Archeos repasse par là, il va se plaindre de ta démarche abusive qui est de la destruction non justifiée de contenu libre ayant une licence valide contestée par personne (et pas par toi car ta contestation sans rien demander à personne et avec une procédure d'urgence non justifiée, n'est clairement pas valide).
Note que l'IGN publie bel et bien des données sous licences libres, même si toutes les données de l'IGN ne le sont pas. Tu devrais le savoir. Et l'IGN intervient comme fournisseur pour l'IAAT qui a le droit de créer ses propres contenus. Une carte graphique n'est pas une base de données et la licence de base de données de l'IGN n'est pas applicable aux cartes dérivées de ses données mais pas créées par l'IGN...
Tu fais de la chasse pseudo-préventive : le "copyvio" ne peut être invoqué que si on arrive à trouver une contenu identique soumis à une licence ou des droits plus restrictifs ou si le nom d'auteur a été abusé ou masqué (ce qui n'est pas le cas ici non plus). Il ne suffit pas de trouver l'auteur car tous les contenus ont des auteurs (et le copyright ne renseigne que cela : l'attribution), ou si un titulaire de droits conteste la délivrance d'une licence valide pour son contenu. Bref si on arrive à prouver le mensonge de celui qui a importé le fichier en violant les droits. Mais là tu n'as rien prouvé du tout et rien demandé à personne (juste à moi alors que je n'avais même pas à être avisé, même si je donne mon avis ici). verdy_p (talk) 02:09, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mais maintenant que la page a été effacée sans rien demander à personne, il me reste à déposer plainte contre ton action colontaire destructive malvenue et clairement abusive contre les contenus libres de Wikimedia. Ton action est clairement malveillante, beaucoup plus grave que le copyvio invoqué à tord et même pas justifié (tu n'as pas voulu interroger la bonne personne). Tu as agi comme un sale pirate malveillant contre Wikimedia et ses contributeurs et je vais maintenant te traiter comme tel. verdy_p (talk) 02:17, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note that admins of Commons also approve my position, but they just lack time to verify all deletion requests. This is a critical problem because any one can easily ask to delete any image in Commons, without even informing the initial poster or the community, and nobody will verify this assert, and a bot will delete the image simply because someone has inserted an invalid' copyvio assertion.
You PAC2 are abusing Wikimedia, not respecitng the past work. We need a protection of Commons content created by its users, even if they are no longer present (or when they are not even alerted of these attacks.' This is a very serious issue. Most free and legal contents on Commons are in severe danger. verdy_p (talk) 10:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Flags of Nièvre[edit]

Category:Flags of Nièvre 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 category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it.

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

Cycn (talk) 19:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, another invalid request by someone that does not understand how Commons works. This causes people to loose time. Deletion requests should only be about verified abuses of licences (copyvio) for contents, or about obvious errors when naming a category which is, here, useful and expected to help image uploaders to sort their images. verdy_p (talk) 10:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fungi[edit]

Good evening, Verdy. Before this coup de main one week ago, organisms were categorized as objects; there has been a discussion since under Commons:Village pump#Organisms and objects. --Abderitestatos (talk) 18:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nature[edit]

Perhaps a french philosopher might help? I find the nature category here on commons very distubingly meaningless and mis-used, I am sure 75% of the images have nothing to do with nature, in any sense of the word... but how to convince anyone it is a pointless term... sats (talk) 10:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is as it is. I'm not changing the way it is categorized, but I uniformize the missing links between categories and the various ways they are accessed depending on locations (continent, country, ecoregions, oceans, season, date...), because I find many images remaining in too many categories, or in toot categories to subcategorize, or not found with some search paths).
Crossing the categories and completing thme with nav templates to help locate the related ones. In fine it's to help putting contents to the most precise levels, without too many categories added per media.
verdy_p (talk) 10:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Verdy_p/archive8&oldid=353118670"