User talk:Yann

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Bahasa Indonesia ∙ dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ euskara ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ Simple English ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ ქართული ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ไทย ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ العربية ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

/archives 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54

God is busy, may I help you? / Dieu est occupé, puis-je vous aider?

You can leave me a message in English or French, at the bottom. Click here. Yann 22:13, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

DRs

Just to give one example, Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by FrDr this image was taken on a private nature reserved owned by Natuurpunt, a non-private conservation organization that owns private conversation land. Which I was pretty clear about in the DR. The same for at least the next couple of images in it. They were all taken on private conversation land owned by Natuurpunt. I'm really getting sick of you targeting and harassing me. Are you just that petty that your going to continue coming after me 2 years later because of one incident? Adamant1 (talk) 10:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you see that the land is owned by Natuurpunt? This association manages the nature reserves, but I don't see evidence that it owns the land. That is usually not how it works. This kind of association works with public funds to manage publicly owned land. Please keep the discussion in one place. Yann (talk) 10:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind keeping the conversation about the DRs to the ANU complaint. I think that's tangential to you constantly going after me for no reason every time you get a chance though and I'd like it to be settled regardless of the ANU discussion. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamant1: Do not take this issue personally. I would answer the same to whoever create such DRs. Yann (talk) 12:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann, I noticed that Adamant1 has opened a whole series of similar DRs for tourist and nature reserve signs, always based on the same reasoning that there's no FOP for these kind of tourist signs (see : Category:Belgian FOP cases/pending) FrDr (talk) 16:01, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FrDr: Yes, I closed some of them. Could you add the {{FoP-Belgium}} to all images (you can do that with VFC, tell me if you need help)? Could you also answer about who owns the land where these pictures were taken? Are these places open to the public without any restriction? Yann (talk) 17:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann: I don't know how VF works, help would be greatly appreciated. The outdoor signs of tourist attractions, monuments and nature reserves weren't taken on private land (which I wouldn't even have access to to take the pictures in the first place). kind regards FrDr (talk) 20:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that someone can't take pictures on private land is totally ridiculous and I've said a couple of times now at least a few of the signs clearly stated the nature reserves were privately owned by Natuurpunt. You can claim they aren't, but they clearly are and your word isn't valid evidence. At least not compared to an actual sign saying the nature reserve is private. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it probably doesn't matter who owns the land, as long as it is open to the public. Yann (talk) 09:11, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I explained that in the ANU complaint. "private" is just shorthand for "permanently accessible to the public" because access being restricted to private property is kind of inherent to the thing and I don't feel like writing a mini-essay about what exactly the terms "private" and "public" mean every time this comes up just because people like you want to be pedantic about it. But I will point out that in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Natuurpunt Smiley.toerist said museum's aren't sufficiently public enough because they have "controlled access" and then went on to describe private nature reserves in a way that clearly shows they control access to the public. So there isn't a legitimate argument that they are "permanently accessible to the public" enough to be public places for the purposes of FOP in Belgium. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FOP in Belgium applies to all places that are freely accessible for the public. Who owns a place is not relevant for the law. What is relevant is that anyone can freely enter without asking permissions, etc, which is the case. That a nature organisation places fences around an area is commonly to keep animals inside and to make sure humans only enter the area via the paths. As nature areas are sensitive to disturbance, access is commonly limited to pedestrians only. To enforce only pedestrians to enter, gates can be placed. (This is also the case at many public parks.) This however does not limit pedestrians from freely entering the area and nature areas are public places, falling under FOP.
The signs in question are commonly located at the edge of the nature areas and commonly can be photographed from the road. Also the areas of Natuurpunt fall under FOP as they are freely accessible and anyone who wants can freely enter the area without asking permission. Also signs inside the property can be freely photographed under FOP.
I also have to conclude that I see a pattern of abuse behaviour of the nominator. In earlier discussions it has been made clear to the nominator that the perspective regarding FOP the nominator describes is false, substantiated by experts, and even still continuing this behaviour of nominating images for deletion because of FOP, knowing that the images do fall under FOP. Romaine (talk) 09:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the perspective regarding FOP the nominator describes is false, substantiated by experts, and even still continuing this behaviour of nominating images for deletion because of FOP, knowing that the images do fall under FOP. @Romaine: Where exactly have "experts" substantiated that private nature reserves are covered by FOP in Belgium and were have I supposedly been "continuing the behavior" as your claiming? Because the last time I checked no one has cited any "expert" opinion about it in any of the DRs or anywhere else. At least not that I'm aware of. Nor have I continued to nominate images of private nature reserve in Belgium for deletion after those initial deletion requests that the discussion is about and I've pretty much dropped it since then. You and Yann are literally the only one's continuing to comment about it.
As a side that, I'll also point out that making up false accusations about other users is a form of personal attack, which you should be aware as an administrator. So I'd like an answer. Especially in regards to how I'm supposedly "continuing the behavior" (whatever your referring to). Since again, I'm not the the one continuing to bring this up or discuss it. Both you and Yann are the only one's who are. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

How is it petty to ask someone to ask an administrator to not make comments towards me that I find insulting? Your the one always initiating things on your end by making the comments to begin with. I have absolutely nothing to do with you otherwise and I should be able to ask you to stop making them and leave me alone if I have an issue with how your treating me. Adamant1 (talk) 13:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1: You are looking for these comments. If you don't want that your claims are called "nonsense", do not make claims without any valid rationale. It is quite simple, isn't? Yann (talk) 13:20, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really not. I said in the ANU complaint that I didn't think Tulsi is doing paid editing on here, but that someone doing paid editing probably shouldn't have the VRT permission just to be on the safe side anyway. I don't really see what's "nonsense" about that. Regardless, I'm certainly not looking for those types of comments from you and there's an appropriate way to respond to someone you disagree with. Like how Aafi responded, which I think was perfectly fine. I find dealing with you rather distressing a lot of the time since you blocked me for essentially no reason those two times though and I should be able to make edits having to feel threatened or intimidated while doing it. It's certainly hard to deal with the insults.
Maybe it's a cultural thing, but I really do honestly find the term "nonsense" rather insulting. Again, there's an appropriate way to go about criticizing someone and I don't think calling what they say "nonsense" is a way to do it. Why not at least stop saying it as a good faith measure towards me and sign that your willing to get along if nothing else? Just say why you disagree with what I'm saying and move on. There's no reason to make every minor thing you disagree with or response that personal. To quote Commons:Harassment "It is as unacceptable to harass a user with a history of inept or disruptive behavior as it is to harass any other user."--Adamant1 (talk) 13:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Read again what I wrote there. I didn't say anything about your comment on Tulsi. I said that your claim that File:Sunny Leone snapped at Mehboob Studio.jpg is advertising for Bollywood Hungama is nonsense. Well, French translation (absurdité) doesn't seem to have the same definition as English. You also wrote the file should have just been deleted on site as blatant promo. Seriously I don't see how you can say that with a straight face. Yann (talk) 13:49, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but still even if you disagree it's advertising that's no reason to call my opinion that it is "nonsense." There are images on here from the same source without the watermarking containing their website URL after all, which also happens to be in the middle of the image BTW. I don't really see how anyone can say with a straight face that a URL to a commercial website in the middle of an image isn't advertising. It's clearly meant to call attention to their website. Regardless, as I said there's a civil way to go about this anyway. Just find a better term. Absurd is kind of getting there. But still, there's no reason you can't just say I'm wrong, point out specifically why, and then move on without the needlessly personal tone to begin with. Like "it's not advertising because of X" and leave it at that. I'd love to know why you think Bollywood Hungama putting an extremely obvious watermark containing their logo and website URL in the middle of an image isn't meant to serve as advertising. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bollywood Hungama sells images of Bollywood people: actresses and actors (mostly), directors, etc. The watermark is mainly here to reduce the commercial value of the images when not paying for them, not so much to redirect searches to their website. People who want to buy these images know where to do that. Anyway, the attribution URL is useful to increase their Google ranking, while the watermark is not. Yann (talk) 14:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hhhmmm, I guess I wasn't aware that something was only advertising if it improves the companies ranking on Google lol. You got to admit that's not the standard for what makes something promotional on here and that they could direct people to where they buy the images in a less direct way. Like I said, its not like a lot of their other images have the watermark either. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding my own Image Copyright for April Solar eclipse 2024

Hello, it has come to my attention that my own photos have been deemed "Vandalism" or is Missing information, I would like it to know that I am the owner of these photos. I do not understand the confusion behind the photos that include my own watermark "MHT Aviation Photography" as believing it is owned by someone else. I own the rights to those photos and have the original files on my PC. I also own and operate the website mhtaviation.com, where user Ace has cited to remove my own images.

Although my name "KMHT Spotter" Is my Wikipedia name, I am MHT Aviation. There shouldn't be any copyright issues regarding my own photos. I would ask the images to be reinstated. I own those photos and can back up my claims by using unedited and unaltered images of the eclipse. These are my photos which I wanted to share with my watermarks on them. I wish for this to be resolved quickly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KMHT Spotter (talk • contribs) 21:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@KMHT Spotter: Hi,
Sure, and thanks for sharing your pictures. But anyone can register an account with any name, and we get many people claiming a copyright which they don't have. Also your other pictures do not have EXIF data, so we can't count on that to verify the ownership. And you claimed as yours a satellite picture. IMO it would be best if you confirm that you are the author via COM:VRT. And please upload the original pictures with EXIF data. Thanks, Yann (talk) 09:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Serpulo Planet - Mindustry.jpg

This image is a screenshot from a game called Mindustry which is under GPL 3.0 liscence, which means I'm allowed to publish it on Wiki Commons: https://github.com/Anuken/Mindustry

Please bring it back Arkyid (talk) 15:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done FYI, you tagged it yourself for speedy deletion. I fixed the license. Yann (talk) 16:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Pedo-Hunter" BLP uploads

Deleting the files is kind of pointless when the full name and residence of the targeted subject is still listed at the talk pages of both users Trade (talk) 08:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Trade: URL? Yann (talk) 08:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot about them?--Trade (talk) 08:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Trade: I think you fixed it. Or there anything else to do? Yann (talk) 08:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The previous edits are still available in the history and the logs (which they shouldn't be according to this) Trade (talk) 08:28, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, right so ✓ Done. Yann (talk) 08:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You forgot Hannoveraner1981 Trade (talk) 08:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Yann (talk) 08:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:OpAustralia-4.jpg

Hello. You have deleted this image that I uploaded. It is a logo of a hacker group Team Insane pk. And from my knowledge it is not under any copyright and can be considered under fair use. Could you tell me why my reasoning was wrong? Changeworld1984 (talk) 09:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Changeworld1984: Hi,
Nowadays, everything is under a copyright be default, unless otherwise specified. And fair use is not accepted on Commons. Yann (talk) 09:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Though I want to point out that a hacker group logo shouldn't be under any copyright. They have attacked multiple government services in Australia and India. Changeworld1984 (talk) 09:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter, unless it is mentioned somewhere by the logo author that it is in the public domain. Yann (talk) 09:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you agree with this?

Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Indefblocked-global I don't but maybe I'm wrong.Krok6kola (talk) 21:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My uploaded pictures were deleted by Wikipedia's mistake.

None of my uploaded contents was copyright violation. Please check and research before blaming and puting any objection on someone. My uploaded pictures were related to the page where I put the files. The owner of those contents is Zee Entertainment Enterprises Pvt Ltd. And my attempt was fair use, not copyright violation. Please solve the issue and restore my contents. KJKDITY (talk) 08:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@KJKDITY: Yes, your uploads are copyright violations. Fair use is not allowed on Commons. Please read COM:L. If you want to upload anything create by someone else, first ask the copyright holder to send a formal written permission for a free license via COM:VRT. Yann (talk) 09:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those contents I uploaded, all are for public domain. I got those pictures from random sight of Google and youtube. And my question to you, is the copyright holder reported you to delete their contents? I didn't here for my personal profit. I put those file on Wikipedia for editing their show's page in detail. That's it. I gave up! KJKDITY (talk) 10:07, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@KJKDITY: Stop saying nonsense, read en:copyright, and Commons policies. Thanks, Yann (talk) 10:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of the Forza Italia.png

Hi, I read the license and I think I have given valid reasons in the motivation to back my claim that that file is, in fact, not in the public domain. Of course you can disagree with me, but I think I have given a valid rationale for it. Janik98 (talk) 10:11, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no. You should also read COM:TOO. Thanks, Yann (talk) 10:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plage Paul Thomas

Bonjour Yann, je crois que tu parles français ? Je ne comprends absolument pas l'accusation. J'ai pris cette photo il y a quelques jours sur la plage concernée donc je ne vois pas comment on peut prétendre qu'elle pourrait être une violation de droits d'auteurs. En recherchant sur Google, je vois qu'il y a des photos ressemblantes mais si tu observes les vagues tu remarqueras les différences. En tout cas je jure que c'est bien moi qui viens de prendre cette photo. Bien à toi. Enrevseluj (talk) 23:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oui, je pense que c'est une erreur du nominateur, comme mentionné dans la demande de suppression. Yann (talk) 10:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bonjour Yann, désolé, je ne comprends pas beaucoup l'anglais. Je crois que la page a été conservée mais m'en suis rendu compte après mon message. Malgré tout, les accusations sont violentes lorsque l'on s'investit tel que je le fais. Je passe des heures à aller photographier les lieux de Guadeloupe, parfois à la rame comme c'est le cas ici, et se retrouver en accusation par la simple utilisation de Google Lens (pas au point la preuve), cela fait mal. Je comprends que les modérateurs font leur travail, mais je trouve que la bonne FOI n'est pas bien pris en compte. Bien à toi et merci d'avoir suivi cela. Enrevseluj (talk) 16:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apparemment, le nominateur n'est pas très exprimenté et a fait une erreur. Ça arrive à tout le monde. Yann (talk) 16:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your deletion log

Hi, can you please use the delete link in the speedy template? Many of your deletion log are "per COM:SPEEDY" which is not clear. Phương Linh (talk) 13:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Official Portrait

Hello Yann, a recent upload of mine has been deleted from wikimedia due to copyright violation, i am just wondering i have listed the source accurately as it was collected from this website, then where did i make the mistake if you can let me know please?

Thanks

Tahmid TahmidAzuwad (talk) 16:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you decline File:Instructing Basic Computer Literacy at Touch The Slum 01.jpg?

Seemed like an obvious copyright violation to me. Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 06:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sunny Leone snapped at Mehboob Studio.jpg

Is there a reason you couldn't have left that DR up to someone else considering your involvement in the original discussion and attitude related to it? I still have yet to hear a valid reason why watermarking can't be promotional or advertising in certain instances, and it seems like your only response when we discussed it was to deflect and make things personal. I'd like an answer though. Otherwise I can either just renominate the image for deletion, ask about it on the village pump, or file an ANU complaint for you closing DRs related to things that your clearly invested in and biased about. Take your pick. Adamant1 (talk) 14:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I just asked about it on the village pump since I doubt you'd have an actual answer anyway. I'll save the ANU complaint for another time, but I will say that it might be worth thinking twice about not closing DRs that your so involved in next time. Especially if there ones that I opened. I'm willing to take your word that there's no axe grinding involved in those types of decisions, but it would be cool if you at least did your part and left me alone as much as possible. Otherwise I'm just going to naturally assume there's more to it. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let It Be Teaser

User:Yann: I did a print screen for Commons|fichier=c:File:Annonce LIB sans logos.jpg. It is only geometric shapes with very little text without special fonts. I believe it becomes, by default, public domain. See Commons:Screenshots (...but an exception can be made where the content is de minimis.). If I'm wrong do what you must ! JeanPaulGRingault (talk) 23:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JeanPaulGRingault: Sure, but you still need to add a license. I did it for you this time. Please provide the proper source and author. Yann (talk) 06:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:میراکبرخیبر، اناهیتاراتبزاد، کيشتمند، سلیمان لایق.jpg

Hi Yann. Could you take a look at File:میراکبرخیبر، اناهیتاراتبزاد، کيشتمند، سلیمان لایق.jpg? The claim of "own work" seems questionable, and I think this might be a re-upload of File:د افغانستان دوه گوندیز کمونیزم (پرچم،خلق).jpg that you tagged as a copvio in September 2014 and which was subsequently deleted as such by Beria (who hasn't edited on Commons since April 2020) later that same day. This file was uploaded a few weeks after the other was deleted. If it's OK for Commons, then en:File:Sultan Ali Keshtmand.jpg will not be needed as non-free use on English Wikipedia and can be tagged for speedy deletion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: No, it is not the small file. This would be OK if more than 50 years old as {{PD-Afghanistan}}. I nominated it for deletion. Yann (talk) 06:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking a look. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gibraltar.ogg

I saw it was nominated several times because of random things; I was able to confirm this file is a blatant copyright violation. Should I continue with the DR or should it just be deleted outright? User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 08:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pooja-Hegde-6.jpg

Hi Yann, This image is not comes in and events of website (According to Category:Unreviewed files from Bollywood Hungama), It's comes in Celeb Photos, these copyrighted and should be deleted in Wikimedia Commons. Why you marked as reviewed? Please review carefully. Regards Sriveenkat (talk) 12:59, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. I nominated it for deletion. Yann (talk) 15:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Check these also: File:Ranbir Kapoor images.jpg, File:Harbhajan-Mann.jpg, File:Harbhajan-Mann1.jpg Sriveenkat (talk) 08:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, deleted. It seems I was a bit too fast in that batch of reviews. :( Yann (talk) 09:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Argentina.webp

I'm curious why you deleted this redirect. I thought it made sense considering the circumstances and also took an overly generic name out of rotation. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 15:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think a redirect should not lead to a different format. So a WEBP redirect should only lead to a WEBP file. Yann (talk) 15:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I didn't realize you also deleted File:Flag of Argentina.webp, which File:Argentina.webp was pointing to. Thanks. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:30, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Request

Please , kindly assist in closing the deletion nominations for these two photos: File:Ann Jane Arko Anny Photoshoot in Yellow Top in April 12 2015.jpg and File:Anny (Ann Jane Arko) on the Runway of Mercedes Benz Fashion Week.jpg Both photos in question portrays a model who lacks notable recognition or relevance within Wikipedia’s scope. They don't contribute meaningfully to any relevant article or topic. The photographer remains unknown or not an established artist in the industry as well. The the photo was uploaded for self-promotion. Moreover, it's a copyvio. Several photos uploaded by the user have been already deleted. Wikipedia aims to provide accurate and valuable information to its readers, and including images of individuals without notable recognition detracts from this objective.Newrobertsparks (talk) 17:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Yann (talk) 17:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalisme sournois

Cher Yann, je découvre aujourd'hui seulement ce vandalisme sournois d’un contributeur habituel de Commons MB-one. Cette avocate juive des Droit de l'Homme est mal vue par l’extrême droite. Je pense que, même tardivement, il est nécessaire de sanctionner ce comportement pour le principe. Un contributeur habituel de Commons ne devrait jamais faire de tels actes de vandalisme. Avec mes remerciements, Claude Truong-Ngoc (talk) 10:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT : Je découvre que cet utilisateur est administrateur. Ce ne peut-être une malheureuse erreur. Une sanction exemplaire doit être prise. --Claude Truong-Ngoc (talk) 11:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ctruongngoc: User:MB-one est un administrateur sur Commons. J'espère donc qu'il y a une explication, sinon une sanction s'impose effectivement, Yann (talk) 11:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merci beaucoup @Yann: je suis tellement choqué par ces méthodes. J’ai vu beaucoup de choses ici et sur Wikipedia, mais là on atteint un sommet de veulerie crasse. --Claude Truong-Ngoc (talk) 11:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ctruongngoc: Je ne voudrais présager de rien, vu que cette modification fait partie d'une série faite avec un bot. Mais de toute façon, des excuses sont nécessaires. Yann (talk) 11:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ctruongngoc@Yann thank you for notifying!
The edit in question was part of a semi-automated edit run and certainly not an intentional attack on anyone. The image seems to be in a subcategory of Animals and was therefore included in the filter. I apologize to anyone who feels offended by this mistake, that was thankfully timely corrected by User:Drow male.
Thank you for your understanding. MB-one (talk) 13:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MB-one: I don't see how it was in a subcategory of "Animals", but thanks for your message. Before your edit, the categories were Category:Leah Tsemel, Category:Portraits 2019 par Claude Truong-Ngoc, Category:Personnalités par Claude Truong-Ngoc, Category:Taken with Fujifilm X-Pro2, Category:Photographs by Claude Truong-Ngoc taken in 2019, Category:21st-century black and white portrait photographs of sitting women. Yann (talk) 15:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Animals --> Mammals --> People --> ...
Certainly a big oversight on my part, not to exclude the People subtree from my filter list. Will certainly be more careful in the future. MB-one (talk) 15:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to comment on one thing (excuse my poor use of the English language): the Category:Quality images of animals had more than 2000 files (that was too many photos), and this week I was recategorizing everything there was. I was surprised by this photo, but clearly it was a simple mistake that anyone can make (me the first), and it has now been corrected. Drow male (talk) 17:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your explanation and I consider this incident closed. For information at @Túrelio: --Claude Truong-Ngoc (talk) 17:30, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Painting of battle of Cer

I have photographed a painting of battle of Cer painted by Djordje Čarapić Fusek, who died in 1941 during WW2... I wish to upload it on Wikimedia but I don't know under which rules I can upload... Painting is in possession of Serbia and author has died more than 70 years ago... Please explain to me on my talk page can I upload it and under which rules... Pink Flojd (talk) 15:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pink Flojd: Hi,
So this painting in the public domain in Serbia, but its copyright status in USA is not so clear. When was it painted? Yann (talk) 16:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure but before 1941 since author died on 10 July 1941...I can check...Fusek painted it probaly before battle of Mišar of Afansij Šeloumov since battle of Mišar was painted in 1938 and Fusek died 4 years latter on July 10th of 1941... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pink Flojd (talk • contribs) 17:34, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that this was not public domain in Serbia in 1996 per en:Wikipedia:Non-US copyrights. If it was painted in 1938, it can be uploaded here in 2034 as we tend to assume publication around creation for artwork. If you don't think you can wait for 10 years, you can upload it and have one of us speedy delete it for you and we'd put the file in the Undelete in 2034 page. Abzeronow (talk) 18:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For your information

This is not a request nor even a suggestion. It's just a notice for your information. A previously blocked user is continuing to perform questioned actions including starting this deletion request: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Principia_Discordia_(1970) and posting questioned and removed material at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Discordianism&action=history Alden Loveshade (talk) 16:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I closed the DR on Commons, clearly not based on anything rationale. Yann (talk) 16:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help. Alden Loveshade (talk) 17:35, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, 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 ∙ 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 ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Affected:


Yours sincerely, Omphalographer (talk) 22:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Test edit"

Hi there! I wasn't trying to "test" anything; I simply wanted to bring attention to the issue which has been unresolved for 4 years now. Do you know of a better way to do so? Thanks for your help Firestar464 (talk) 00:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Firestar464: Hi, Then add a meaningful message. Yann (talk) 08:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Twain

Hm… ★ 01:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Restorable? ★ 01:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ArionStar: Yes, it is a good candidate, but it requires a lot of work. The background looks like the Hubble Deep Field. “It is full of stars!” Yann (talk) 19:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

post photos

Bonjour, j'ai posté des photos (ces 15 derniers jours) dont une partie provient d'un site explicitement nommé avec l'accord écrit de son propriétaire. Evidemment je ne vois pas comment mettre son accord sur Commons, j'ai donc mis son accord en texte simple. Comme plusieurs ont été supprimés j'ai demandé directement au propriétaire de ces photos de les mettre avec les droits, ce qu'il a fait (mais faire faire ce job par un autre n'a pas trop de sens). Poster des photos persos semble aussi compliqué (tag?). Je pense que mes futures contributions vont rester en texte uniquement. salutations Arnaud Arnaud.neuch (talk) 06:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Arnaud.neuch: Bonjour,
Il faut que le détenteur des droits d'auteur confirme l'autorisation de publication des photos sous une licence libre par email. Voyez COM:VRT/fr pour la procédure. Les photos pourront être restaurées si et quand l'aurotisation est validée. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 09:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
For helping keep the Copyvio category clean. I always appreciate that! ;) Grandmaster Huon (talk) 20:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Restoration of Uploaded Media: Files Licensing Clarification

Hi Yann, Thank you for your message concerning the licensing status of several files I uploaded recently. I acknowledge the importance of ensuring accurate licensing information for Wikimedia Commons files. Regarding the files in question: File:Vitaliy Stupak and team English Channel 2021.jpg - sourced from: [1] File:Vitaliy Stupak English Channel 2021.jpg - sourced from: [2] File:Vitaliy Stupak English Channel.jpg - sourced from: [3] File:Vitaliy Stupak Lago d'Orta 27 km.jpg - sourced from: [4] File:Vitaliy Stupak The North Channel road 2022.jpg - sourced from: [5] File:Vitaliy Stupak The North Channel ultraswim 2022.jpg - sourced from: [6] File:Vitaliy Stupak The North Channel 2022.jpg - sourced from: [7] File:Vitaliy Stupak and team The North Channel swim 2022.jpg - sourced from: [8] I will ensure to provide the appropriate licensing information for each file as per Wikimedia Commons guidelines. However, I would like to inquire whether I need to download the files myself for any necessary modifications or additions. If there are any additional steps or information required, please let me know, and I will promptly address them. Thank you for your attention to this matter and for your assistance in maintaining the integrity of Wikimedia Commons. Mariana Kunch (talk) 14:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mariana Kunch: Hi,
The copyright holder has to send the permission via COM:VRT. The files will be undeleted when the permission is validated. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Arizona state seal.svg

Good day, thank you for your work. I have an issue with your undeletion of File:Arizona state seal.svg [9] - not so much the undeletion per se as the fact that the license claims seem to me dubious. Please see my comments at File talk:Arizona state seal.svg. Thank you for your attention. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Infrogmation: Hi,
Thanks for your message. Why do you think that Carl Lindberg's argument on [10] is not valid? The deletion request could eventually be reopened. Yann (talk) 15:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. Reverse image searches shows multiple versions years earlier, same outline drawings with slightly different colors applied. So I do not see support for the supposition that Skunkcrew created the seal as own original image work based on text description. I am loathe to relist something that has been undeleted, but license claims seem to me a remaining problem that should be noted somehow. Perhaps more discussion on the image talk page? Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:47, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Infrogmation: This file seems to be a derivative work of File:State Seal of Arizona.svg, which first version was uploaded by Carl himself in 2011. Yann (talk) 15:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Infrogmation: I added the PD-USGov tag to it, since it's a copy of the federal government vector that I uploaded years ago, just with changed colors. It is unlikely the uploader gets a copyright on that color choice (particularly as he said he was being similar to the state website). Certainly not in the U.S., but in the rare chance that some other country has a low threshold of originality on color choice alone, *maybe* the CC0 may have relevance there. But I would not be opposed to removing it as being mostly misleading, and taking out the "own work", since it's really not. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion
★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Les Joueurs de cartes, par Paul Cézanne.jpg, that you uploaded is now assessed as one of the finest pictures on Wikimedia Commons, the nomination is available at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Les Joueurs de cartes, par Paul Cézanne.jpg. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate, please do so at this nomination page.

/FPCBot (talk) 21:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yann&oldid=871267182"