User talk:Yann
|
This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.
|
/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
- User:Yann/Valued images, 2009-2014, 2015-2016, 2017-2019
- User:Yann/Quality images, 2005-2014, 2015-2016
- User:Yann/Featured images, 2009-2018
You can leave me a message in English or French, at the bottom. Click here. Yann 22:13, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wave to earth (2).jpg questions...
You offered an image in [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Wave_to_earth_(2).jpg&diff=prev&oldid=831811966 this comment] of these musicians "wearing the same clothes".
And, in [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Wave_to_earth_(2).jpg&diff=next&oldid=831811966 your closure] you offered another image of the musicians wearing the same clothes.
Do you see these images as undermining the credibility of [[User:Leonor Gonçalves Rodrigues]]? Fans had an opportunity to take photos of the band. You found two fans who uploaded their photos to pinterest. Can I ask, do you think the existence of similar images, from other people, confirms [[User:Leonor Gonçalves Rodrigues]]'s own work assertion aren't credible? Yes, she might have copied an image from a place like pinterest. Or she still might have taken the images at the concert, just like she claimed.
You closed this discussion. Did you forget that you also opened it? Isn't it the normal practice to wait for a second administrator to close discussions one opened? Geo Swan (talk) 01:41, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- Was the second image a duplicate of File:Wave to earth (2).jpg? Okay, an actual duplicate would have merited speedy deletion. But, in cases like that, in future, may I request that the deletion log says "copyright violation", not "per nom"? And that your closure also state "copyright violation"? Once the image is deleted a guy like me is merely going to see that it was similar.
- So, was the second image an actual duplicate? I used tineye, and it didn't find any duplicates. How did you find it? Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 02:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- See the link I provided in the closure. It is the same image. So as a small image without EXIF data with copies on the Net, a speedy deletion is appropriate. If the uploader is the author, a permission via VRT is needed (probably with the original image with EXIF). I edited the DR, so that it won't be confusing. Yann (talk) 07:27, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
User doesn't understand concerns with his uploads
Yann, I see that you declined Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current requests#H_Baudu_wiki.jpg, and are a native Francophone, so I'm raising this issue with you instead of Didym, who I originally started writing to.
Didym deleted that and another file uploaded by Superka2711, leaving a message on the user's talk stating licensing grounds. The user doesn't understand the issue and instead of asking, has filed the undeletion request and has asked (in French) on English Wikipedia at the Teahouse noticeboard for new users. I see that the user is writing a biography—the statements at the Teahouse suggest it is an autobiography—in his sandbox on French Wikipedia, and has uploaded File:Hervé Baudu Ensm.jpg to illustrate it. Can you please explain to him in French what he needs to do to establish the right to use the image and to release it under an appropriate license? I'm going to note at the Teahouse discussion and/or one of his Wikipedia talk pages that I have left you this note. Many thanks. Yngvadottir (talk) 11:28, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Yngvadottir: Hi,
- There may be 2 issues here. First if this is not a selfie, the copyright is owned by the photographer, so a permission is needed.
- But more importantly, I am not sure this person is notable enough to have an article, and this user has no edit except his autobiography. So the image is out of scope for Commons. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:36, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for responding! I'm getting all tangled up in my rusty French trying to leave the editor a message on his talk page at en.wiki. He seems to be completely new; just welcome templates on both Wikipedia user talk pages. I agree about the draft, autobio or not, but it's in user space and French Wikipedia can deal with it anyway if they need to. On the image, that was my thinking, although given the subject's profession I suppose there might be the "military photographer in performance of their duties" exception to copyright. (Or taken on a timer?) But the problem is, the user appears to not understand at all what the problem is. I'm not sure whether he clicked through to see a translation of the speedy deletion notification template he received. But it's apparent that he needs a plain-language explanation in French that he needs to have pressed the button himself; and that he should upload it on French Wikipedia, not Commons. Yngvadottir (talk) 11:51, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- I wrote a message in French on his talk page on French WP. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- I saw, thank you very much! He has responded there. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:21, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- I wrote a message in French on his talk page on French WP. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for responding! I'm getting all tangled up in my rusty French trying to leave the editor a message on his talk page at en.wiki. He seems to be completely new; just welcome templates on both Wikipedia user talk pages. I agree about the draft, autobio or not, but it's in user space and French Wikipedia can deal with it anyway if they need to. On the image, that was my thinking, although given the subject's profession I suppose there might be the "military photographer in performance of their duties" exception to copyright. (Or taken on a timer?) But the problem is, the user appears to not understand at all what the problem is. I'm not sure whether he clicked through to see a translation of the speedy deletion notification template he received. But it's apparent that he needs a plain-language explanation in French that he needs to have pressed the button himself; and that he should upload it on French Wikipedia, not Commons. Yngvadottir (talk) 11:51, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Hey Yann. Earlier, you said the image cannot be a FPC since it had a non-free license. That issue was resolved and can be seen that it is resolved in that nomination for deletion. As I am the nominator, I am unable to use the template to contest your quick deny of the picture for FPC. Since the original issue was quickly resolved (mere hours after the FPC decline), could you self-contest your decline and allow the image to continue as a FPC? WeatherWriter (talk) 18:11, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- @WeatherWriter: May be you can show me, but I don't see any free license on Icelandic Meteorological Office website (Commons:Deletion requests/File:2023 Grindavik eruption.jpg). Yann (talk) 18:31, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- You can see it here: [1]. WeatherWriter (talk) 20:36, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Please undelete
Category:Unidentified logos of the Netherlands: Not empty, now, and should be tagged with {{Empty category}}, anyway. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 20:53, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Happy holidays!
|
Merry Christmas and a happy, healthy and successful New Year 2024! -- Radomianin (talk) 12:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
Hi, you removed this file and CommonsDelinker removed the references to it. I guess it was a bit too speedy because CommonsDelinker hadn't processed the file move yet. Could you undo it? bdijkstra (overleg) 13:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- It seems CommonsDelinker processed the file. It can take some time, but it will do the job once it is scheduled. Yann (talk) 14:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Season Greetings
| Wishing You all the best for the Holiday Season! I hope You are warm, safe and treated kindly |
|
Joyeux Noël!
.jpg)
|
✴ Happy Holidays, Yann ✴
Merry Christmas and a happy new year! |
Happy holidays and best wishes!
|
Happy holidays!
Merry christmas! Best wishes for 2024! -- Giles Laurent (talk) 18:51, 22 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*ೃ༄ Feliz Navidad, Yann *ೃ༄
Merry Christmas and a joyous new year filled with peace, love, and happiness! Wilfredor |
Wilfredor (talk) 19:01, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Happy holidays!
  |
* Happy Holidays! * | |
-- George Chernilevsky talk 21:35, 22 December 2023 (UTC) |
Hi! Please, could you nominate this photo? I already have two active nominations. ★ 13:21, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Happy holidays!
|
Happy holidays, Yann!  Greetings from Te Moeka o Tuawe, Te Tai Poutini, Aotearoa. --SHB2000 on 00:03, 24 December 2023 (UTC) |
Seasonal Greetings!
|
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2024! |
|
Hello Yann, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2024. Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
A1Cafel (talk) 03:37, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
File:Mariuva 2.png
Thanks for answering my earlier questions.
{{FOP}} for otherwise valid images that contain a sculpture, where the sculptor has their own IP rights... Thanks!
Your deletion log entry for File:Mariuva 2.png says COM:WEBHOST. I left a note somewhere, about looking into this image. I am pretty sure I concluded the individual had a measure of notability.
I have participated in some discussions where other people have called for deletion of images on notability grounds, when, in their opinion, the individual in the image would never measure up to the wikipedia's WP:GNG. I've argued that this is too high a bar. BLP says that individuals whose notability is not sufficient for a standalone article may receive some coverage in a subsection of a related article.
So, an image of an actor who is not notable enough for a standalone article, may nevertheless end up being used to illustrate an article on a movie or play they appeared in. I think this puts these kinds of images in scope.
I've made this suggestion multiple times, in the last couple of weeks. No one has offered their own opinion as to how notable an individual should be before their selfies are in scope.
Free images of individuals are hard to find. This means that we can end up with free images that are not well lit, or are slightly distorted, because they are cropped from the edge of a larger picture. When a notable individual's vanity triggers a complaint about the free image we are using I encourage them to upload a selfie they like better.
I've asked whether other people thought I was giving those notable people bad advice.
Can I ask you to clarify your position on this? When someone with some measure of notability uploads a selfie, so their image would be in scope, is it your position it should, nevertheless, be deleted on Com:WEBHOST grounds?
Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 18:23, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- Hi, Her article was deleted on Portuguese Wikipedia, with only 2,290 Google hits, she is not notable enough to have an article. And this is most probably not a selfie, so the permission from the photographer is needed. Yann (talk) 20:04, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Yes, the coat of arms is used in a Wiki, so the first attempt for deletion was wrong. But what about the copyright? As already said, I think this COA is maybe no real coat of arms of an existing family (the use in the article is OR). It's maybe just artwork and fantasy. Artwork is under the protection of copyright. So the proper reason for deletion is copyvio. (Please note the copyright sign in the file!) GerritR (talk) 16:47, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
- @GerritR: Copyright violation of what? Can you show the source? Actually this CoA seems to exist: [2]. Yann (talk) 19:06, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
- The COA in the source is slightly different, if you look exactly. But talking about copyvio, I refer to Commons:Pcp. The uploader has to prove that the image is not under protection of copyright. If not, we have to assume that it is protected.--GerritR (talk) 20:43, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
- I think you are a bit confused about Commons:PRP. This is not a reason to delete anything without a valid rationale. This design could be old, so you have to provide some evidence that it is a copyright violation. Yann (talk) 20:47, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
- The COA in the source is slightly different, if you look exactly. But talking about copyvio, I refer to Commons:Pcp. The uploader has to prove that the image is not under protection of copyright. If not, we have to assume that it is protected.--GerritR (talk) 20:43, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
This one now? ★ 11:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi, Yann. All of my uploads (forget about the first one) have been copyrighted because "Cited YouTube-Video not published under CC-license". I already cited the YouTube-Video on my uploads under CC-BY-3.0 license, but you and User:Alexander-93 think it's not. Can you check the details of my uploads please? Also, ask him why all the cited YouTube videos are not in CC-license. Guyrichtheman (talk) 01:21, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Guyrichtheman: I indeed checked your uploads, and I didn't see a free license at the source. Yann (talk) 19:28, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- You did check the hidden category of CC-BY-3.0 right? Guyrichtheman (talk) 01:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Guyrichtheman: Which hidden category? Yann (talk) 10:21, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- CC-BY-3.0 license, as I said from all the uploads. Guyrichtheman (talk) 23:59, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Guyrichtheman: As I said above, there is no free license on the files you uploaded. Yann (talk) 09:47, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- CC-BY-3.0 license, as I said from all the uploads. Guyrichtheman (talk) 23:59, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Guyrichtheman: Which hidden category? Yann (talk) 10:21, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- You did check the hidden category of CC-BY-3.0 right? Guyrichtheman (talk) 01:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Age of Mythology: Retold trailer
Hi Yann!
As recent discussions tend to upload videos like game trailers with a CC license note, I wanted to ask if it makes also sense to upload the Age of Mythology: Retold trailer to Commons? The license note can be found here, for example. What do you think about this? Maybe you would like to upload the video if it is okay to upload, so I wanted to mention this.
Greetings, --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 15:58, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- @PantheraLeo1359531: Hi,
- Wasn't this one already uploaded? There is indeed a free license at IA, although the license was changed on YT. Yann (talk) 19:31, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- I assume, it wasn't uploaded. I did not upload it back then, and it seems that there are no results on Commons while searching it... :( --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 19:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Could you restore this one too? Thanks! ★ 15:40, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
Apologies, I’m stupid
...and I can’t tell if this was addressed to me or not. I apologise if I said anything I shouldn’t’ve done - I intended to just relay information from enwiki that I thought was relevant (that a mediawiki dev’s comment implied that it wouldn’t be recommended to undelete a file at the same time it’s due to go on the main page), though I apologise if it was inappropriate.
Best, A smart kitten (talk) 20:30, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello. Can you put this file in categories: Category:Videos of cartoons Category:Videos of 1928 from the United States? Also give the templates {{Creator:Walt Disney}} and {{Creator:Ub Iwerks}}. OGPawlis (talk) 12:56, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Deletion requests
"Kenkichi Tomimoto (left) with unknown, circa 1917.jpg", "Kenkichi Tomimoto (right) with unknown, circa 1917.jpg", and "Kenkichi Tomimoto and Shinichi Sasagawa, circa 1917-1918.jpg". Shirogane10 (talk) 16:33, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
|
File:Battleship Potemkin (1925) by Sergei Eisenstein.webm has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. |
Mayimbú (talk) 21:41, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
|
|
File:The Chase (1946) by Arthur Ripley.webm has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. |
Mayimbú (talk) 01:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
|
|
File:The Circus (1928) by Charlie Chaplin (restored version).webm has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. |
Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 07:26, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Mad Doctor
Yann, I have reservations about File:The Mad Doctor (1933).webm. It contains the Pluto character, as mentioned in the comment next to the "Undelete in 2027" category which you removed. That character was not introduced at all until 1930, and probably only became a "character" in 1931. Secondly, the appearance of Mickey Mouse changed over time, and each film can add a derivative "layer" to a character, which will only expire layer by layer as 95 years is up on each of them. Per this site, there were some significant changes made to how Mickey was drawn in 1929, and those would not expire until next year. I would wait longer to restore this one. Perhaps next year, the Mickey related stills would be OK, but probably 2027 for the Pluto bits. I would really only restore Mickey stuff which came out in 1928, at this juncture. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:10, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- OK, I redeleted this. It is very confusing what works of Disney can be undeleted, and what can't. Yann (talk) 15:15, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. 1928 releases are a full go. After that, you get into argumentation on if there were copyrightable aspects added later (if a film was not renewed, etc.). But if those 1929+ works (which introduced any copyrightable changes/enhancements to the character, be it appearance or backstory or stuff like that) are still under copyright, then there could be an arguable problem if those aspects appear in later films which were not directly renewed. That link seems to mention two specific appearance changes which first appeared in 1929, so unless those movies were also not renewed, I'd tread carefully. But those additions would expire next year. The Pluto part though is more obvious for 2-3 more years. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Clindberg and Yann: I made the note to not restore the file until 2027 because I was concerned that Pluto's name and status as Mickey's dog was not established until 1931. Also, I don't know whether there's some elements introduced in 1932 that The Mad Doctor also incorporates; I haven't looked too deeply into Disney historical lore, but I think the shorts are standalone enough that it's not like there's some overarching continuity to worry about as such. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Mad Doctor 1933 Mickey Mouse Sound Cartoon.webm. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 02:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, and relevant link, for any lurkers: Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Mad Doctor (1933).webm. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 02:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Clindberg and Yann: I made the note to not restore the file until 2027 because I was concerned that Pluto's name and status as Mickey's dog was not established until 1931. Also, I don't know whether there's some elements introduced in 1932 that The Mad Doctor also incorporates; I haven't looked too deeply into Disney historical lore, but I think the shorts are standalone enough that it's not like there's some overarching continuity to worry about as such. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Mad Doctor 1933 Mickey Mouse Sound Cartoon.webm. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 02:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. 1928 releases are a full go. After that, you get into argumentation on if there were copyrightable aspects added later (if a film was not renewed, etc.). But if those 1929+ works (which introduced any copyrightable changes/enhancements to the character, be it appearance or backstory or stuff like that) are still under copyright, then there could be an arguable problem if those aspects appear in later films which were not directly renewed. That link seems to mention two specific appearance changes which first appeared in 1929, so unless those movies were also not renewed, I'd tread carefully. But those additions would expire next year. The Pluto part though is more obvious for 2-3 more years. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Can I ask you to have a look at this one? I assume you have more experience than I as to how we name categories like this for French-language sources. - Jmabel ! talk 18:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=831811966){kind=link}
.jpg&diff=next&oldid=831811966){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:2023_Grindavik_eruption.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=832239277){kind=link}
