Open main menu

Contents

File:2012-12-28T14-05-12 img 0827.jpgEdit

 
File:2012-12-28T14-05-12 img 0827.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 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 | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Taivo (talk) 16:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Shibuya - Asu no Shinwa - 2016-05-06.jpgEdit

 
File:Shibuya - Asu no Shinwa - 2016-05-06.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 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 | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

DAJF (talk) 07:22, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Valued Image PromotionEdit

Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Japanese sword-making.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

Valued Image PromotionEdit

Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Château de Loubens-Lauragais seen from NNE.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

Captions in VIEdit

Bonne série en VI, mais attention il faut une légende en anglais pour que tu sois promu. Continu! --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Merci. Les critères COM:VICR disent « An English description is preferred although not essential » ;-) Mais je suis tout à fait d'accord avec toi, c'est bien mieux d'avoir une description en anglais, j'y ferais plus attention. J'ai corrigé mes deux photos concernées. -- Mathieu MD (talk) 20:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Valued Image PromotionEdit

Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Nikon Coolpix P610 , front-left.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

Valued Image PromotionEdit

Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Chappe tower of Lévignac.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Habaki (katana).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Nikon D5500, front-right.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

Valued Image PromotionEdit

Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Valley of Comminges, seen from North.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

Valued Image PromotionEdit

Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Sceliphron curvatum nest, opened.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

Valued Image PromotionEdit

Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Lake of Filleit, from the dam.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Lake of Mondély, view from West.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

Lysichiton camtschatcensisEdit

Pour la légende met le binominal et, pour plus de clarté ,le nom du pays (c’est fait). Regarde le scope : le binominal suivi du nom vernaculaire en anglais et de la description. Place ton image dans la gallerie (c’est fait) . Tu peux rajouter le sigle qualité (c’est fait) et après ta promotion en VI celui de valeur. Ton image étant reconnue par ces deux labels tu peux la mettre en place (fait pour Wikidata et Wiki France). Bonne journée. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:33, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

  Thank you. pour les infos et démonstrations ! Mathieu MD (talk) 06:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Pélopée courbée - Nids en terre - 2016-07-23 - 05.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Lac de Filleit - 2016-07-03 - 21.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Lysichite blanc à Shiramine (Hakusan) - 08 - 2016-04-25.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Valued Image PromotionEdit

Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Lysichiton camtschatcensis (asian skunk-cabbages) Bract and Spadix.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Forge of Japanese swordsmith.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Renaissance building of the castle of Caumont.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Cerisier et pétales roses - 2016-05-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.

--QICbot (talk) 05:28, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Basilique Saint-NazaireEdit

J'ai corrigé St Nazaire. Tu n'avais pas ton Nikkon. Si tu es gène par les dimensions prend deux images que tu collera ensemble c'est souvent plus simple. Bonne journée. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:06, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Même avec mon reflex je peux faire des horreurs sans nom... Merci beaucoup pour tes améliorations substantielles ! Mathieu MD (talk) 16:41, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Valued Image PromotionEdit

Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Musée-forum de l'Aurignacien, wood cabinets room.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Bertier castle in Pinsaguel, seen from SW.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

Pour VIEdit

Certes, mais à défaut de telle image pour l'instant, celle-ci me semble la plus illustrative de la confluence. Elle n'est pas parfaite, cependant, j'en conviens volontiers.
  • Pour l’intérieur du musée d’Aurignac, tu peux faire des photographies des pièces exposée, une bonne partie provient des collections du MHNT (je les ai photographiées avant de les envoyer à Aurignac).
J'en ai faites quelques unes, mais les tiennes seront sans aucun doute bien meilleures. Tu pourras peut-être les ajouter à Category:Musée-forum de l'Aurignacien ?
  • Mais la photographie que tu as faite montre la muséologie et là il y a un copyright. Pour être franc je ne connais pas de cas où il y ai eu une plainte.
Ça rappelle un peu le non-droit de panorama français... J'ai bien pris soin de ne pas prendre des panneaux tels-quels, mais des vues générales, justement pour éviter ce problème. Mais s'il faut les supprimer, ainsi soit-il. Ceci dit, la jeune femme de l'accueil était ravie d'apprendre que mes photos finiraient sur Wikipédia (mais ça n'a bien évidemment aucune valeur juridique).
  • Pour la route sur la plage du japon l’idée est excellente ; mais comme pour la photo d’Ariège-Garonne elle est trop peut spécifique. En dehors de plaque d’immatriculation c’est une image qui peu avoir été prise n’import où dans le monde. Il faut un déterminant assez fort un phare, un escarpement rocheux, un bâtiment qui lui donne sa spécificité.
Argh, j'ose espérer que faire rouler des milliers de bagnoles sur les plages n'est pas trop courant quand même... Il me semblait que c'était, en soi, terriblement spécifique.
  • Le corbillard me plaît bien. Mais le scope n’est pas travaillé. Tel quel tu veux que cette image soit emblématique de tous les corbillards japonais depuis l’antiquité à nos jours. Il faut focaliser le scope. Ce type de corbillard a-t-il un nom au japon ? Depuis quand l’utilise t on ? Est-il toujours en activité ? Voila quelque piste pour enrichir le scope.
Je ne sais pas grand chose sur le sujet... Que penserais-tu de requalifier en Modern Japanese hearse in Kanazawa ? Je ne peux pas dire qu'il s'agit d'un prétendu « style of Kanazawa », car aucune source ne le confirme particulièrement (celles de l'article sur wikien sont largement insuffisantes, et ne mentionnent même pas le sujet, d'ailleurs)

Continu et n'hésite pas à poser des questions. Bonne journée. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:13, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Merci, encore, pour ton aide ! Je ferais attention à mieux penser mes scopes. :) Mathieu MD (talk) 09:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 2016-05-01 14-58-28 JST 0228.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.

--QICbot (talk) 05:14, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Valued Image PromotionEdit

Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Nakanoto's twin tower bridge in Ishikawa.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

Valued Image PromotionEdit

Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Saigawa Bridge, seen from West.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Castle of Mézens seen from West.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

Valued Image PromotionEdit

Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Église Saint-Vincent in Carcassonne, seen from South East.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Exterior of Basilique Saint-Nazaire de Carcassonne, seen from SE.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

Giroussens!Edit

Les mairies et les monuments aux morts sont d’une extrême importance ce sont eux qui rassemblent la commune. Il faut les mettre en avant et les choyer. Regarde cet exemple : file:Bourg-Saint-Bernard - Mairie.jpg La légende doit donner un peu plus d’informations géographiques et si possible faire le lien avec l’article. Si tu regardes en bas dans « Utilisations locales du fichier » tu va voir : « Town halls in France » c’est une galerie où tu peux mettre ton image. Elle me plais bien car elles sont toutes sur un pied d’égalité, et les beaux Hôtels de Ville côtoient de microscopiques mairies. Pour les catégories rajoute « Town halls in Tarn »

  Done  

Pour les monuments aux mort même schéma regarde : file:Bourg-Saint-Bernard -Monument aux Morts.jpg

  Done      

Pour ton église s’est un peu différent je te propose de regarder celle ci file:Église Saint-Pierre-et-Saint-Phébade de Venerque.jpg Donne le lieu plus détaillé dans la légende. Met le bandeau Mérimée dans la légende. Surtout regarde où elle est placé. Le nom du village, mais aussi « Liste d'églises françaises à clocher-mur », et « Liste des monuments historiques du Tarn » pour ton image.

  Done File:Giroussens - Église - 2016-08-07 - 04.jpg

Les autres images que tu as faites de ce monument sont toutes éligible en VI.

  Question À ce sujet, y a-t-il une limite, quotidienne peut-être ? J'ai vu que tu en nominais 3 par jour ; mais, à la différence de COM:QIC, je n'ai pas vu de telle recommandation pour COM:VIC.

Pour les intérieurs d’église c’est un univers à part entière…

@_@

Bonne journée --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:02, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

On ne s'en rends pas compte, mais c'est énormément de travail, en fait ! Quand je vois que tu as pris une bonne grosse part des photos des monuments de Midi-Pyrénées – en plus du reste ! – je suis épaté... ^^ --Mathieu MD (talk) 08:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Valued Image PromotionEdit

Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Modern Japanese hearse in Kanazawa.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

Ton commentaire en VIEdit

Bonsoir MathieuMD,

Je te remercie d'avoir pris le temps d'examiner ma proposition de VI concernant Marmari, et pour tes commentaires.
Permets-moi toutefois d'apporter ici quelques précisions en guise d'explication de mes désaccords.
Sur le scope, tu pourrais avoir raison s'il y avait d'autres vues du village susceptibles d'entrer en compétition, ce n'est pas le cas. Je choisis donc, tout simplement de prendre purement (et intégralement) le scope "Marmari". Réduire les "scopes" n'est légitime, à mon sens (et selon l'esprit de la règle, me semnle-t-il), que si c'est nécessaire. Trouve moi un concurrent valable dans le scope, un peu, pour voir ? Mmmmmh ?
Sur ta suggestion de recadrage, c'est là une question d'esthétique qui n'a pas sa place en VI, dès lors que l'image traite correctement du sujet. Par ailleurs, sur le fond, je ne suis pas sûr d'être d'accord avec toi: je trouve que le premier plan illustre aussi parfaitement ma proposition: l'environnement de cette petite conurbation (habitus), ainsi que je l'indique dans ma présentation.
Voilà ce que je souhaitais t'indiquer.
Bien cordialement,--Jebulon (talk) 21:11, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
En l’état s’est vrai, il n’y a pas de concurrent, mais la probabilité qu’une photographie prise de l’autre côté de la baie n’est pas nulle. L’orientation dans le scope éviterai les conflits futurs. C’est une recommandation plus qu’une règle, il faut juger au cas par cas. Ceci t’aura permis de connaitre Jebulon pilier de COMMONS, dont les avis sont toujours intéressants. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:45, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Ah te voilà, vieux grigou !! Je m'attendais bien à te voir mettre ton grain de sel   ! J'ai orienté le scope, je suis trop vieux pour contre-argumenter  .--Jebulon (talk) 17:00, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Bonjour @Jebulon:,  
  • Sur le cadrage, pour la raison que tu soulèves, je n'avais pas l'intention que ça soit bloquant pour soutenir ta VIC ;
  • Par contre pour le scope, c'est comme le dit @Archaeodontosaurus:. Un scope de lieu fixe me semble en effet avoir plus d’intérêt s'il est orienté (« from South ») et/ou qualifié (« from the sea »). C'est d'ailleurs ce que j'ai cru comprendre comme étant une bonne pratique, et je trouve ça pertinent.
J'espère que ça réponds à tes interrogations. :-) --Mathieu MD (talk) 06:31, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Ce n'étaient pas précisément des interrogations... Et je présenterai un nouvelle vue de cette cité depuis l'autre côté, comme ça, ça fera deux VI au lieu d'une, ainsi que le suggère @Archaeodontosaurus:, dit l'Ancêtre... --Jebulon (talk) 17:00, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Valued Image PromotionEdit

Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Town hall of Giroussens, from West.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
War memorial of Giroussens, from East.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Église Saint-Salvy de Giroussens, from North West.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.


Nénuphars en VIEdit

  Certaines parties ne sont pas nettes. C’est à case de f4, tu aurais facilement pu faire f9 avec des iso 100.

En effet, je débute encore, et j'oublie souvent de revoir mes réglages une fois lancé... Mais ça finira bien par rentrer ! ;-)

Il y a beaucoup de concurrent dans ton scope. Tu peux faire la différence par 3 points : la définition et la taille de l’image (il y a un concurrent meilleur), par le nombre d’utilisation. Sur ce point tu devrais promouvoir tes images en les plaçant toi-même. D’abord dans la galerie où elle n’est pas ( c’est là que va la majorité des recherches), mais aussi dans les différents articles. Cette image « File:Nymphaea alba.jpg » est utilisée sur 117 pages alors quelle est totalement démonétisée ; pas de qualité par de légende : une antiquité.

Pour ce qui est de les ajouter aux galeries Commons, je pense qu'il est mieux d'y ajouter les images après qu'elles aient été confirmées comme ayant un intérêt. Surtout quand il y en a autant que ça dans un scope donné. Non ? Évidemment, s'il n'y en a pas d'autres, la question ne se pose pas.

Le 3e point est l’originalité. En fait je pense que tu as fait la photo d’un hybride mais il faudrait que tu connaisses les 2 espèces dont elle est issue. Peut être que tu peux te renseigner sur ce point. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

J'ai posé la question par email aux Jardins, j'espère qu'ils répondront... Ma photo a aussi cela d'original que la fleur n'est pas encore épanouie, ce qui permet de voir la structure des étamines(?). --Mathieu MD (talk) 11:42, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Non la valeur botanique reste faible.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:52, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Jardin des Martels - Nénufars - 2016-08-07 - 04.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Valued Image PromotionEdit

Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Troglodyte houses at the exit of Le Bout du Lieu, Cabrerets.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

Un bon petit diable...Edit

Bonsoir,

Je ne connaissais pas ce détail du Pont Valentré, je te félicite de l'avoir choisi et photographié. Ta photo souffre toutefois d'une terrible aberration chromatique violette le long des tuiles, qu'il faudrait corriger, car même si les qualités techniques d'une photo sont moins prégnantes en VI qu'ailleurs, la plupart de nos collègues hésiteront à promouvoir une image avec un tel défaut, bien trop visible. Si tu n'y arrives pas, alors n'hésite pas à sacrifier cette partie, et rajoute un peu de contraste sous la toiture pour éviter l'effet d'estompe ou de brouillard sur les poutres, tant que tu y es.

Allez, on y croit !

Bien cordialement,--Jebulon (talk) 17:10, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Personnellement je ne l'avais pas vue. Je crains de mérité le titre d’ancêtre. Si tu as des soucis techniques tu peux aussi demander de l'aide. Non, ce qui m'a un peu ennuyé c'est la légende assez faible: la date de la restauration est intéressante et surtout signale toujours que c'est un monument classé.
Je ne connaissait pas ce diable, pourtant Cahors a été ma première affectation durant l'hivers 87 grande saison pour les truffes : je n'ai pas quitté le restaurent durant tout mon séjour.
Bonne soirée --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Merci à vous, chers senpais. ;-)
J'ai corrigé – autant que je le peux faire — la photo.
@Archaeodontosaurus, pourtant en 1887 ça faisait déjà huit ans qu'il était censé s'y trouver... :-P
Mathieu MD (talk) 20:07, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
En fait dans ce cas c'est très facile car le ciel est gris. Tu capture à l’arrache la frange; tu dessature le canal bleu et tu assombrie un peu. C'est tout. En fait les stratégie se font au coup par coup. Bonne journée. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:43, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Pour le coup, la « suppression des franges » de darktable (fr) semble avoir plutôt bien fonctionné, non ? --Mathieu MD (talk) 06:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Je viens de voir que tu avais envoyé une nouvelle version ! La mienne d'hier soir 21:45 est mieux, non ? Léger recadrage, contraste local et accentuation des menuiseries. --Mathieu MD (talk) 06:33, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
@Archaeodontosaurus:, j'ai restauré ma version. --Mathieu MD (talk) 06:33, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Je n’avais enlever que la frange. Donc tu l'a restauré et elle est effectivement toujours là comme avant. Ce n'est pas très important, mais tu as là un bon exercice. As tu une procédure de correction de frange sur ton programme? Si oui essai le. A 100% tu as aussi une grange verte le long de la porte. Sinon applique mon conseil et tu vas l'enlever en deux clics. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:48, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Vous avez des yeux de Superman ! Darktable avait plutôt bien supprimé les franges (bleu à droite, et verte à gauche), mais il restait en effet un léger ton bleuté dans les menuiseries du toit. J'ai suivi ton conseil, et les ai réduit dans cette zone. --Mathieu MD (talk) 08:04, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Valued Image PromotionEdit

Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Terminus of the Chemin de fer touristique du Tarn at Jardins des Martels, from East.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

Valued Image PromotionEdit

Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Église Saint-Salvy de Giroussens, Entry, from South West.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Jardin des Martels - Abeille - 2016-08-07 - 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Jardin des Martels - Nénufars - 2016-08-07 - 06.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.

--QICbot (talk) 05:13, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image PromotionEdit

Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Jardin des Martels - Lotus jaune - 2016-08-07 - 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.

--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Valued Image PromotionEdit

Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
The Devil on the Pont Valentré.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

Valued Image PromotionEdit

Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Nasal polyp.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

Valued Image PromotionEdit

Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Lac Vert, Castillon-de-Larboust, France, from E.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

Valued Image PromotionEdit

Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Chapel of Gléon (Villesèque-des-Corbières, France) from SE.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

Valued Image PromotionEdit

Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Abbey of Boulbonne (Cintegabelle, France) - From West.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Abbey of Boulbonne (Cintegabelle, France) - Cloister.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Abbey of Boulbonne (Cintegabelle, France) - Entry gate.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

Copyright status: File:Paris - Carte IGN 1940.pngEdit

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | slovenščina | svenska | українська | ಕನ್ನಡ | ತುಳು | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
 
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Paris - Carte IGN 1940.png. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the OTRS system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

JuTa 04:08, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi @JuTa:, do you have any suggestion to fix it? This map is in the public domain in France (I got it confirmed by the IGN itself), and probably never get published in the USA. Did the templates I added now are OK? See File:Paris - Carte IGN 1940.png. --Mathieu MD (talk) 08:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I removed the problem tag now, although I'm not realy happy with the licenses because the author didn't likely died the year when the card was created (1940). Perhaps {{Anonymous EU}} is the better choice. --JuTa 11:28, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I replaced {{PD-old-auto|deathyear=1940|country=fr}} by {{PD-anon-70-EU}} as suggested. But, just to be clear, this work is not really anonymous: it's been made and published by IGN. However, because it is not a real person's work, it's authors' rights expires 70 years after its publication, instead of the usual 70 years after author's death. If there were a specific template for such cases, I would use it, but I couldn't find one. --Mathieu MD (talk) 12:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Nasal polypEdit

Thanks for the picture, will be used in an iBook about nose and sinuses of the VU University Medical Center Amsterdam —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 145.121.17.166 (talk) 13:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. Is there any chance your e-book would end up in Wikibooks? ;-) --Mathieu MD (talk) 13:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Valued Image PromotionEdit

Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Dry dock of Toulouse - Covered dock - Seen from South.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Building at 32 rue Sainte-Philomène, Toulouse - Seen from NE.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

Valued Image PromotionEdit

Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Fountain of Aspet - Seen from SW.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Church of Aspet - Seen from WNW.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Town hall of Aspet - Seen from ENE.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

Valued Image PromotionEdit

Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Broken DMD chip showing "white dots".
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

File:Warhammer - Space Hulk - 01.jpgEdit

 
File:Warhammer - Space Hulk - 01.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 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 | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

NoCitNeed (talk) 12:52, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Warhammer - Space Hulk - 02.jpgEdit

 
File:Warhammer - Space Hulk - 02.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 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 | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

NoCitNeed (talk) 12:53, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Courriel WLM 2016Edit

Bonjour  ,

Je vous ai envoyé le 25 novembre un courriel important concernant votre participation au concours Wiki Loves Monuments. Si vous l'avez bien reçu, pouvez-vous me répondre par courriel pour me confirmer la bonne réception du courriel et pour que je vous apporte quelques précisions pratiques, s'il vous plaît ?

Bien cordialement ! Jules WMFr (talk) 14:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Je viens de vous répondre @Jules WMFr:. Merci. --Mathieu MD (talk) 19:14, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Photos de MélenchonEdit

Bonsoir :) Je viens de découvrir vos photos à la suite de votre ajout d'une illustration de la foule au meeting de Toulouse sur l'article traitant de La France insoumise. Je vous remercie pour cet ajout enrichissant pour cet article de Wikipédia ! En consultant vos autres photos, je me rends compte que vous avez pris plusieurs photos de Jean-Luc Mélenchon qui seraient parfaites pour illustrer son article et notamment son infobox. Comme vous pourrez le voir sur la page de discussion de l'article, nous avons beaucoup de mal à trouver une photo pour cet effet, qui soit à la fois récente et de haute qualité. Pourriez-vous proposer l'une de vos photos, redimensionnée en portrait, pour illustrer cette infobox ? Merci :) --Léodras (talk) 19:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Merci @Léodras: Je suis effectivement cette discussion de loin, mais personnellement je trouve la photo initialle  de Pierre-Selim de bien meilleure qualité que les miennes (malgré tous mes efforts ! ;-)). Par ailleurs, une de mes photos  a déjà été proposée par Kergourlay sans grand succès. Mais si vous pensez qu'une autre ferait mieux l'affaire, n'hésitez pas à la proposer ; elles ne sont là que pour ça ! :-) --Mathieu MD (talk) 20:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Your VFC installation method is deprecatedEdit

Hello MathieuMD, we are aware that using the old installation method of VFC (via common.js, which you are using) may not work reliably anymore and can break other scripts as well. A detailed explanation can be found here. Important: To prevent problems please remove the old VFC installation code from your common.js and instead enable the VFC gadget in your preferences. Thanks! --VFC devs (q) 16:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Château de CastelfrancEdit

Bonjour,
En parcourant les images de WLE 2017, je tombe sur vos photos du château de Castelfranc qui me posent un problème sur deux choses :

Je suppose que c'est par erreur que ces photos sont arrivées là...
Cordialement, Pmau (talk) 11:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Bonjour @Pmau:
  • je n'ai certes pas ajouté ces photos par l'outil d'upload de la campagne, mais j'ai par contre bien veillé à leur ajouter le modèle approprié {{Wiki Loves Earth 2017}} ; il me semble que j'avais procédé de même pour mes photos de la RNR Cambounet-sur-le-Sor, ainsi que pour mes participations à WLM en 2016. N'est-ce pas acceptable ? J'espère que si, sinon ça rendrait la procédure d'ajout des photos trop spécifique et décourageante (j'utilise Vicuña pour ça) ;
  • elles ont été prises dans le PNR du Haut-Languedoc, dont j'étais pourtant certain de l'avoir vu figurer quelque part, peut-être sur la carte WikiData. Mais en lisant la page de discussions sur A propos des Parc naturels régionaux (PNR) je vois que les PNR ont effectivement été supprimés cette année. OK, tant pis et désolé pour le surtravail induit. Je retire le modèle de ce pas.
Mathieu MD (talk) 12:39, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Aucun problème pour ce qui est de la méthode d'upload si ce n'est que cela rend le contrôle un peu plus difficile. La catégorie de vérification permet juste de voir les nouvelles photos qui arrivent et de les classer dans une des sous-catégories. Ces photos de monuments vont finir dans la catégorie "with lack of identification". Bonne fin de journée. Pmau (talk) 12:43, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Valued Image PromotionEdit

Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Facade of Château de Castelfranc (Tarn, France).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Altar of church Saint-Corneille of Puycelsi (Tarn, France).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Ars waterfall, seen from North.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Church Saint Jean-Baptiste of Labessonnié, Montredon-Labessionnié (Tarn, France), seen from South..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

File:Jardin des Martels - Nénufars - 2016-08-07 - 04.jpgEdit

 
File:Jardin des Martels - Nénufars - 2016-08-07 - 04.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 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 | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

46.26.208.35 15:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Jardin Royal - 2016-08-09 - 01.jpgEdit

 
File:Jardin Royal - 2016-08-09 - 01.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 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 | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

90.43.158.13 13:23, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Statue de Saint-Exupéry - Jardin Royal (Toulouse) - 2015-02-18.jpgEdit

 
File:Statue de Saint-Exupéry - Jardin Royal (Toulouse) - 2015-02-18.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 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 | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

90.43.158.13 13:24, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Jardin Royal - 2016-08-09 - 02.jpgEdit

 
File:Jardin Royal - 2016-08-09 - 02.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 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 | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

90.43.158.13 13:25, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Jardin Royal - 2016-08-09 - 03.jpgEdit

 
File:Jardin Royal - 2016-08-09 - 03.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 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 | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

90.43.158.13 13:26, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Aspet - Monument Joseph Ruau.jpgEdit

 
File:Aspet - Monument Joseph Ruau.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 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 | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

83.204.180.170 19:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Earth France 2019 a commencé !Edit

Bonjour  ,

J'ai le plaisir de vous annoncer que la cinquième édition du concours Wiki Loves Earth en France est ouverte !

Le concours concernera 368 zones de toute la France, des parcs nationaux jusqu’aux réserves naturelles régionales englobant ainsi des paysages et biotopes variés.

Pendant le mois de mai, n'hésitez pas à mettre en ligne des photos de ces zones que vous auriez sur vos disques durs ou à vous rendre dans une zone concernée près de chez vous (à l'aide de la carte). Le règlement est disponible sur la page du concours.

Les plus belles photos seront sélectionnées par un jury national composé de commonistes, d'acteurs de l'environnement et de photographes professionnels. Un jury international constituera ensuite une sélection des meilleures photographies mondiales. Vous pourrez retrouver toutes les informations détaillées sur le site du concours


P.S. : si vous ne pouvez pas participer au concours cette année, faites passer le message autour de vous pour que de nouveaux et nouvelles photographes rejoignent l'aventure !

Bonne journée, Sarah Krichen WMFr (talk) 08:58, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "MathieuMD".