Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Civa!

Not duplicatesEdit

Hi, File:Jacques-Louis David - La Mort de Marat.jpg and File:Jacques-Louis David 002.jpg are not exact duplicates of File:Death of Marat by David.jpg, we keep all different versions of files except exact duplicates and scaled down versions. :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 09:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I notice you marked a lot of other files as duplicates too. That template is only for deleting exact duplicates. If they are different versions just add them to the "other_versions" list in their {{Information}} box. --Tony Wills (talk) 09:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Serious ViolationEdit

At Commons:Deletion requests/File:Photo1.JPG you added   Keep to a comment made by NVO. Making changes to another user's comments is usually not a good idea, and adding a vote template is a serious violation of our trust. Commons Admins make about 1,000 administrative actions per day, so we work fast, and changing a neutral comment to a   Keep, particularly where the user is an active and well known user, is likely to confuse the closing Admin. If do it again you will be blocked from editing.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Women of FranceEdit

Hi! Don't take it personally -> [1], please. I know that there in France are very beautiful and very clean women, too ;). See here -> File:En pointe.jpg - it's the same girl! But from time to time they being also dirty, too. As everywhere on the world. Regards from Poland :) Electron   <Talk?> 16:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Commons is a store for various files, not only beautyful but for ugly, as well. They should be useful not only for Wikipedias but for other wikimedia projects (wikisources, wikibooks, etc.), too (e.g. "artistic" photos or painting about "all" and "nothing" cen be useful to illustrate the poems). Also it is a store for files that can be useful in the future.
The files was categorized as Women of France because it was tagged as taken in France by it's author, see ->http://www.flickr.com/photos/dansephoto/1683807239/in/set-72157606050419701/ . The city is also produced and this girl is on very meny other photos of this author. Looks like she was a student of a ballet school. Sometimes it is very interesting for people from distant countries see how French women can look like, as well... Electron   <Talk?> 17:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

DR nominationsEdit

I would appreciate it if you would take a little more care with nominating files for deletion as out of scope. I have noticed several cases recently, perhaps as many as ten, such as File:JoshfreeseFriends.jpg where a simple search would have turned up an article on one of the WPs or other clear evidence of notability. Thanks,      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I did read your message. File:JoshfreeseFriends.jpg has perhaps an evidence of notability, but :

  • This is an orphaned image (according to Commons, the image is not used in any WP).
  • The image has a too general category (Category:people). There were almost 500 images in this category. I try to put more refined category (by country, by profession, or ordinary wikipedians). Or nominate for deletion when I think that it is appropriate (the consensus will decide).

Please can you put this image in such a category : Category:Musicians from the United States, perhaps. A better way should be to create Category:Josh Freese to gather all the images of this artist. And you put a commonscat in the English (and other WP) articles.
If answer, on my talk page please. Regards. --Civa (talk) 14:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

You miss my point a little. First, File:JoshfreeseFriends.jpg was only an example of a pattern. Second, although you are correct about the image being an orphan and not in the right cats, neither of those are reasons to delete. We have many images that are not in use within WMF prjoects -- "orphan" is really a bad name for them -- there was never any intention that we keep only images that are in use in WMF projects.
So, again, I would appreciate it if you would take a little more care with your nominations for out-of-scope. Thanks,      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Freedom of PanoramaEdit


France does not have Freedom of Panorama for buildings that pass the threshold of originality (it must have a high level of originality!). See COM:FOP#France.

It's not true for ALL buildings but only for buildings that pass the threshold of originality.


L'argument invoqué est COM:FOP#France

Vous éprouvez, semble-t-il, un certain plaisir à supprimer des photos de Commons.

L'argument invoqué est "Freedom of Panorama"

Toutefois, la protection des oeuvres architecturales ne s'applique que pour les bâtiments récents dépassant le "seuil d'originalité", et présentant un caractère artistique certain (il est précisé sur Commons : "There is no freedom of panorama in France, neither for sculptures, nor for buildings that pass the threshold of originality. Concerning buildings, case law (CA Riom, 26 mai 1967) recognizes two criteria for originality: "a definite artistic character" (« un caractère artistique certain ») and the fact that it does not belong to a series. For instance, the architect of the Louvre Pyramid is entitled to claim copyright over representations of the Pyramid." ). S'il s'agit ici d'un bâtiment récent, présente-t-il un caractère artistique tel qu'il rentre dans la même catégorie que la pyramide du Louvre?

Cela ne concerne pas systématiquement TOUS les bâtiments récents, mais seulement une petite partie d'entre eux.

Ne feriez-vous pas un peu d'excès de zèle, l'ami?

Djampa (talk) 08:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


It is a recent building, and I am sure that the architect wouldnt agree if you say to him that his building is not original. COM:FOP#France applies here. Alas, but it is the French law. --Civa (talk) 20:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Your duplicate listing of Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:La Force de l'art 2009Edit

You accidentally ran Visual File Change twice,[2], and then wrote "I do not dare to cancel one."

Why not? I have cleaned up the mess, but if you are going to use a semi-automated process like that, you should properly be prepared to immediately clean up the mess if you make a mistake -- if possible -- instead of leaving it for others. As a WMF sysop, I accidentally did a page move including subpages that created several hundred improperly renamed subpages. I was working much of the rest of that day to fix it!

I have reverted the extra edits, you should check what I did in case I missed something or did something incorrectly. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 19:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


You are receiving this message because a technical change may affect a bot, gadget, or user script you have been using. The breaking change involves API calls. This change has been planned for two years. The WMF will start making this change on 30 June 2015. A partial list of affected bots can be seen here: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2015-June/081931.html This includes all bots that are using pywikibot compat. Some of these bots have already been fixed. However, if you write user scripts or operate a bot that uses the API, then you should check your code, to make sure that it will not break.

What, exactly, is breaking? The "default continuation mode" for action=query requests to api.php will be changing to be easier for new coders to use correctly. To find out whether your script or bot may be affected, then search the source code (including any frameworks or libraries) for the string "query-continue". If that is not present, then the script or bot is not affected. In a few cases, the code will be present but not used. In that case, the script or bot will continue working.

This change will be part of 1.26wmf12. It will be deployed to test wikis (including mediawiki.org) on 30 June, to non-Wikipedias (such as Wiktionary) on 1 July, and to all Wikipedias on 2 July 2015.

If your bot or script is receiving the warning about this upcoming change (as seen at https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages ), it's time to fix your code!

Either of the above solutions may be tested immediately, you'll know it works because you stop seeing the warning.

Do you need help with your own bot or script? Ask questions in e-mail on the mediawiki-api or wikitech-l mailing lists. Volunteers at m:Tech or w:en:WP:Village pump (technical) or w:en:Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard may also be able to help you.

Are you using someone else's gadgets or user scripts? Most scripts are not affected. To find out if a script you use needs to be updated, then post a note at the discussion page for the gadget or the talk page of the user who originally made the script. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Creative Commons licenses and copyright (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hvem KA.jpg)Edit


I cannot comment at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hvem KA.jpg because that discussion is closed.

However, I wanted to point out something. Just because an image is copyrighted does not mean that it is a copyright violation.

On the contrary, most images in most countries have automatic copyright anyway (whether or not there is a notice), and Creative Commons licenses (except the public domain CC-Zero) do *not* remove copyright ownership). Most images released here under a Creative Commons license are still copyrighted to the original owners. There is no contradiction.

(In fact, if an image did not have copyright- e.g. because it was very old- then that person would not be able to dictate that it is distributed under the terms of the CC license. It would be considered public domain instead).

Google automatic translation into French (je n'etude pas le Francais depuis quatre-vignt douze!)
Je ne peux pas commenter à Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hvem KA.jpg parce que la discussion est close.
Cependant, je voulais souligner quelque chose. Tout simplement parce que l'image est protégée ne' 'pas' 'signifie qu'il est une violation du droit d'auteur.
Au contraire, la plupart des images dans la plupart des pays ont le droit d'auteur automatique de toute façon (si oui ou non il y a un avis), et 'licences Creative Commons (à l'exception du domaine public CC-Zero) ne * pas * retirer la propriété du droit d'auteur)' . La plupart des images publiées ici sous une licence Creative Commons sont toujours la propriété de leurs propriétaires d'origine. Il n'y a pas de contradiction.
(En fait, si une image n'a pas eu par exemple droits d'auteur, car il était très Old- alors cette personne ne serait pas en mesure de dicter qu'il est distribué sous les termes de la licence CC. Il serait considéré comme domaine public à la place).

Ubcule (talk) 10:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


E4024 (talk) 12:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Photos de Jean-Luc ProuEdit

Bonjour Civa. J'ai lu que vous conservez les photos de Luc Chanteloup et Gilles Kervella. Merci, ça va me faciliter la tâche. Par contre vous écrivez "Gilles Kervela" (il manque un"l"), c'est "Gilles Kervella". Je ne sais pas si cela change quelque chose ou pas. voir ci-dessous votre citation : Symbol keep vote.svg Conserver Gilles Kervela, Photograph from France. In use : There is a page in French wikipédia : fr:Gilles Kervela.

Bonne soirée à vous.

@Jean-Luc Prou: Bonjour. Peut-être aurez vous remarqué que Gilles Kervella (avec 2 l) a eu l'honneur de se voir créer par un bot (=un automate) une infobox wikidata dans Category:Gilles Kervella.
Bonjour Civa,
je n'avais pas remarqué. Je suis un peu "nul" en la matière pour le moment. Qu'est-ce que cela change ?
Sinon un certain Kagaoua propose aussi mes photos telles que File:Chanteloup-Luc.jpg à la discussion avant la suppression. C'est décidément compliqué de faire accepter ses propres photographies. Elles sont certes retravaillées pour les besoins de notre site Internet.
L'article "Luc Chanteloup" vient d'être mis en ligne en accord avec l'administrateur WIKIPEDIA Enrevseluj. Mais les photos sont encore proposées à la discussion et seront supprimées au bout de 7 jours. Je ne comprends pas pourquoi, systématiquement, il faut revenir sur ce que nous avions déjà discuté. Si, à chaque nouvel article il faut remettre en question les photographies déposées sur WIKIMEDIA COMMONS, c'est un peu lourd. Est-ce un robot qui fait que cela se reproduit ? Merci de m'éclairer à ce sujet car j'avoue avoir un peu de mal à comprendre.
Dans l'attente de votre réponse.
Passez une très bonne soirée. --Jean-Luc Prou (talk) 21:42, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
@Jean-Luc Prou:Bonjour Jean-Luc. C'est vrai que c'est compliqué et je sors ici un peu de mon domaine de compétences. Il y a plusieurs critères pour que la photo d'une personne soit légitime sur Commons :
  • La personne doit avoir une certaine notabilité. C'était ma critique initiale (non fondée), le problème est maintenant réglé.
  • La photo doit être la propriété de l'utilisateur qui la charge. Or ici, on voit bien que ce ne sont pas des photos que vous avez faites (leur taille est trop petite et il n'y a pas de données d'EXIF). Vous ne devriez pas indiquer comme source "travail personnel" vu qu'elles viennent d'un site internet. Même si c'est vous qui avez fait ces photos pour le site internet. Et si je comprends bien, le site internet qui est copyrighté. Il y a toujours des signes (c) qui trainent sur les sites, justement pour éviter que les photos soient réutilisées.
  • La personne photographiée doit donner son accord pour la publication (la question n'est pas sortie pour le moment).
Ma recommandation : pourriez vous récupérer les fichiers originaux des photos : des .jpg de quelques centaines de Ko avec données EXIF. Et les charger à la place (nouvelle version) en indiquant bien cette fois "travail personnel".
Voila. Je suis désolé d'avoir déclenché cette discussion, mais j'en ai ras le bol de voir chargées des photos d'anonymes : il y a 18.735 photos dans la category:People, mais vous n'en trouverez pas de ma pomme) et de temps en temps je fais du ménage, j'ai eu tort de le faire pour les votres.
Pour compliquer encore, on a le droit de charger sa photo personnelle même si on est un anonyme. Quand c'est pour illustrer sa page personnelle.
Enfin pour l'infobox wikidata créé pour Gilles Kervella, ça ne change rien. C'est un automate qui rassemble les infos dans les category pour créer ça dans toutes les category importantes. Avec des résultats divers...
A votre dispo, mais je ne passe pas tous les jours. --Civa (talk) 18:02, 10 June 2018 (UTC)