User talk:Floppy36

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

File:Lourouer-Saint-Laurent 5.JPG[edit]

Bonjour, J'ai renommé le fichier que tu as mis en speedy deletion. Sache qu'il existe le modèle {{Rename}} pour cela. Ça fait partie des informations que le message de bienvenue mentionne [1].Et ce n'est pas une honte de le laisser ;) J'ai gardé le mien. Cordialement, Otourly (talk) 15:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Je trouve très pratique de mettre des liens dans les descriptions des images tel que [2] en effet ça peut aidder une personne qui ne parle pas la langue de comprendre où c'est. Otourly (talk) 15:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Après les catégories commons ne sont pas pratiqques, elles sont pour la plupart en anglais et puis ce n'est pas ce qu'un lecteur voit le plus facilement. Il peut très bien tomber sur le fichier par la fonction article au hasard ;) Après je dis ça je dis rien tout le monde ne met pas de liens dans les description et je ne peux pas demander à tout le monde d'en mettre, mais c'est juste que c'est beaucoup plus pratique. Otourly (talk) 18:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Licence[edit]

Bonsoir, suite à notre discussion sur le bistro, je reviens vers toi afin de choisir une lisence qui me convienne. --Floppy36 (talk) 20:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

y a quelqu'un. --Floppy36 (talk) 19:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bonsoir, oui il y a quelqu'un... En fait il faudrait que tu définisses plus précisément ce que tu veux restreindre. Par exemple :
  • Quelqu'un change le contraste d'une de tes photos et dépose sa version par dessus la tienne
  • Quelqu'un utilise une partie d'une de tes photos pour faire un photomontage, avec d'autres qui ne sont pas de toi, et dépose ce fichier sur Commons sous un nouveau nom (en citant ses sources)
  • Quelqu'un prend une de tes photos, en extrait une partie et dépose cette extrait sur Commons avec un nouveau nom (en citant sa source).
Dans ces trois cas, dis ce que tu acceptes et ce que tu refuses. En fonction de tes réponses on verra comment agir. Sémhur (talk) 20:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bonsoir, ravit de reprendre la suite, voila mes réponses suite à tes questions :
  • Non
  • Oui
  • Non
voila --Floppy36 (talk) 18:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • ✓  possible sur Commons, en laissant un message explicatif sur la page de l'image
  • ✓  possible sur Commons
  •   pas possible sur Commons
Conclusion : tu ne peux pas déposer sur Commons ces images. Aucune licence CC-BY-ND n'est disponible, car cela les rendrait non libres, et Commons n'est pas fait pour ça.
Tu peux demander la suppression de tes images en apposant dans la description de l'image le modèle {{Speedy delete}}, avec comme argument la raison de suppression {{speedy delete|Wrongly uploaded file (Uploader request)}}.
Sémhur (talk) 20:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ok et si je dis oui au trois proposition, quelle llicense est la mieux.--Floppy36 (talk) 16:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
En cherchant bien, voici ce que j'ai trouvé : à condition de mettre au moins une licence libre, tu peux aussi en mettre une qui est plus restrictive. Dans les faits, cela se traduit par l'utilisation de la licence GFDL 1.2, avec une autre licence, dans ton cas la CC-BY-ND. Pour quelqu'un souhaitant utiliser ton image, cela signifie : « il est possible d'utiliser cette image en respectant la GFDL 1.2, ou sinon, de l'utiliser en citant son auteur mais sans la modifier ». Je te laisse lire l'article sur la GFDL pour voir ce que cette licence, bien que libre, a de contraignant (elle n'a pas été prévue pour les images, mais pour des textes).
Dans la section « Licence » de la description de ton image, tu peux écrire (copie-colle le texte source) :
GNU head Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 only as published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled GNU Free Documentation License. 1.2 only
Creative Commons License
Creative Commons Attribution iconCreative Commons Non-derivative icon
Deutsch: Diese Datei steht unter der Lizenz Creative Commons „Namensnennung-keine kommerzielle Nutzung-keine Bearbeitung 3.0 US“
Lizenz: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/deed.de
English: This file is licensed under the Creative Commons ‘Attribution-NonDerivative 3.0 (US)’
Licence: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/
Français : Ce fichier est sous licence Licence Creative Commons « Paternité, Pas de modification (US) »
Licence : http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/deed.fr
En espérant que cela réponde à tes attentes. Sémhur (talk) 16:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A free license is irrevocable. You can not revoce the GFDL and cc-by-3.0 licenses from your uploads and replace it with this construction above. A change of license is not possible. --Martin H. (talk) 11:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arf... Tu peux lui répondre que "My pictures are still available with free licence: GFDL was and is still available.. I've just reduced the scope of the CC licence."
Si ça ne suffit pas, il faudra en reparler au bistrot pour avoir l'avis des confrères francophones. Sémhur (talk) 14:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is not the license above. Although I disagree with it, the scope of Commons is not "ND" or "NC" but freedom, if someone not likes freedom this maybe is the wrong project.
The problem is the removal of other free license tags. A free license was granted with the file, a free license can not be revoked by removing or replacing the license tags. --Martin H. (talk) 14:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The picture is still free, thanks to the GFDL licence. If anybody wants to use it freely, it can use this licence. If the uploader wants to add a second licence, why not with ND or even NC, he can do that, the file remains free. So I don't understand what you mean. Sémhur (talk) 16:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can not simply revoce a license. The files are published under cc-by-3.0, edits like this removed this free license. Thats not allowed, the cc-by-3.0 is not revocable. A said: There is no problem with GFDL-1.2 (and various unfree licenses added), there is a problem only with removing free license tags. --Martin H. (talk) 16:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour, en réponse à ta demande sur Commons:Bots/Work requests : lorsque l'on charge une photo sur Commons, on s'engage sur la licence, et il n'est plus possible de la remplacer par une autre plus restrictive. Pour tes nouvelles photos, il n'y a bien sûr pas de problème pour utiliser {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}. Cela n'empêche pas formellement les autres contributeurs de modifier l'image, mais si tu leur demande de le faire à un emplacement différent plutôt que d'écraser le fichier, il ne devrait pas y avoir de raison pour qu'ils refusent. Bonne continuation. --Zolo (talk) 21:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Il faut aller dans les préférences et choisir le dernier onglet à droite ("import de fichiers"). On peut y choisir un licence par défaut. --Zolo (talk) 07:23, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And please stop changing the licenses. The license is a contract, you can not change it. For example your recent edit: You can not remove the GFDL from the page, you can not remove the cc-by from the page. Thank you. --Martin H. (talk) 13:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ter briouze.JPG[edit]

If you believe this image should be deleted, file a regular deletion request. DO NOT REMOVE source information and tag for speedy deletion. --Denniss (talk) 22:42, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fr-Paris-Châteauroux.ogg[edit]

File:Fr-Paris-Châteauroux.ogg 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 ∙ +/−

Dschwen (talk) 17:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why should this (and the other) files be deleted?! --Dschwen (talk) 17:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ces fichiers sont des doublons :
  • File:Fr-Paris-Châteauroux.ogg doublon de File:Fr-Paris--Châteauroux.ogg ;
  • File:Fr-Paris-Issoudun.ogg doublon de File:Fr-Paris--Issoudun.ogg ;
  • File:Fr-Paris-La Châtre.ogg doublon de File:Fr-Paris--La Châtre.ogg ;
  • File:Fr-Paris-Le Blanc.ogg doublon de File:Fr-Paris--Le Blanc.ogg.

--Floppy36 (talk) 17:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Last time I checked they were not exact duplicates. Are they the same speaker, or just the same words? --Dschwen (talk) 18:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ce sont les mêmes mot mêmes sons. --Floppy36 (talk) 18:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted your overwrites[edit]

Please see Commons:Overwriting existing files which gives guidance that indicates that your recent file uploads over the top of other files is not the appropriate course of action. I have also kept the files that you did upload and called duplicates. It is possible to have more than version of any particular file or object, we are not limited to one copy only.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Slowly doing the renames[edit]

Hi. I am slowly stepping through the rename requests, it will take a little time. With many of these being listed on one of your frWP user pages, it is going to get many rename hits, so you may wish to consider manually updating that page, or commenting out the files, if you don't want that to occur.  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rename[edit]

Merci de donner une vraie raison (c'est à dire un des critères de renommage : Commons:File_renaming ) pour vos demandes... File:Vue globale de le blanc depuis le viaduc.jpg Cela facilite le travail des renommeurs.

Pleclown (talk) 13:46, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Parisdreux[edit]

You are obviously both the same person, so could you put (using both accounts) something such as
My current account is User:Floppy36. --Parisdreux (talk) 00:00, 24 March 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Confirmed. --Floppy36 (talk) 00:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

on User:Parisdreux? This would (not only) make future filemove requests with criterion #1 easier to handle.    FDMS  4    16:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Enregistrement de prononciations[edit]

Bonjour,

Avec quelques autres wikimédiens, nous avons un projet d'enregistrement de mots (breton et de Bretagne). Je vois que tu as déjà enregistrer des mots de ton côté, aurais-tu des conseils ou des recommandations ?

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 14:49, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mass file renaming[edit]

Read this discussions, please: [3], [4], [5]. Yours, Wieralee (talk) 11:42, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Après avoir fait du tri les images restantes sont a renommées. --Floppy36 (talk) 14:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lacs[edit]

Category discussion warning

Category:Lacs has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Auntof6 (talk) 08:28, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File tagging File:Sachet de le lentilles vertes du Berry.png[edit]

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−
Warning sign
This media was probably deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Sachet de le lentilles vertes du Berry.png. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Sachet de le lentilles vertes du Berry.png]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

Cjp24 (talk) 20:33, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted content[edit]

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ বাংলা ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ हिन्दी ∙ magyar ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ Nederlands ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

Hello Floppy36, the following content you uploaded violates one or more of our policies and therefore has been or will soon be deleted:

File:Sachet de le lentilles vertes du Berry.png

The Wikimedia Commons (this website) only hosts media files with a realistic educational purpose and that can be used for any purpose, including:
  • use in any work, regardless of content
  • creation of derivative works
  • commercial use
  • free distribution

See Commons:Licensing for the copyright policy on Wikimedia Commons, and Commons:Image casebook for some specific examples. Some other Wikimedia projects have different licensing policies. For example, the English Wikipedia allows fair use of sounds and photographs. This is not the case on Wikimedia Commons; "fair use" materials are not acceptable here.

Please make sure that you only upload educational content you have created yourself, those which are out of copyright, or those for which you have the required permission for the work to be used in all the ways described above. Please note that derivative works of copyrighted material are also considered copyrighted. Again, please read through Commons:Licensing, which is quite crucial, to understanding how Wikimedia Commons works. Thanks for your contribution, and please do leave me a message if you have further questions.

Yours sincerely, - FitIndia Talk ✉ 13:17, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Petite plaisanterie :)[edit]

Pour celle-là à droite, vous avez fauché le panneau après avoir pris la photo ? :D
Ben non en fait ce serait plutôt l'inverse car photo datée de 2017 mais sur googlemaps/caméra de rue de septembre 2013 il n'y est pas. Donc qqn l'a remis après 2013 - mais avec une seule patte au lieu de deux. Ca doit être la dèche au conseil municipal... Pueblo89 (talk) 22:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. : j'ai pas vu la bouille du sac de lentilles supprimé (ici plus haut) mais quel dommage de supprimer de bonnes lentilles... Pueblo89 (talk) 22:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Floppy36&oldid=528604265"