User talk:Yann
/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, 2017-2023
- User:Yann/Featured images, 2009-2018? 2019-2023
You can leave me a message in English or French, at the bottom. Click here. Yann 22:13, 30 Apr 2005 (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)
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)
I won't contest the restoration, but what is our evidence this was published in 1930 rather than 1935-1937? Abzeronow (talk) 18:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- We could agree about "published between 1930-1936", it doesn't change the copyright status. Yann (talk) 19:14, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Undeletion of *post-Steamboat-Willie* Mickey Mouse appearance
Hi Yann; I have closely followed the news on Mickey Mouse as the character appeared in Steamboat Willie becoming public domain in the US (though not in Europe, as, for example, Germany, France, and Switzerland have treaties with the US that grant the work protection of 70 years pma, which is 2042 for Ub Iwerks - but this doesn't matter for a US work on Commons, of course). It's great that we can now host images of Mickey Mouse in the original appearance of the character. However, I have also read that this only applies to the very first, more "rat-like" design of Mickey Mouse (without gloves) yet; that is, an article for example explicitly stated that it doesn't apply to the later, more rounded design of Mickey Mouse with white gloves. So I wouldn't have undeleted File:Walt Disney and his cartoon creation "Mickey Mouse" - National Board of Review Magazine.jpg, as this is clearly not the Steamboat Willie Mickey Mouse but a later design - that will probably become public domain in two or three years, too, but I think it's too early now. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, There are more publications of Mickey in 1928 than the movie. See File:Mickey Mouse Color Stock Poster (Celebrity Productions era, 1928).jpg. Yann (talk) 19:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- If this poster was really published in 1928, then I "rest my case" and am satisfied - but then I still find it curious that others explicitly say that only the original version of Mickey Mouse without gloves has become public domain, for example here (in German, "Einerseits betrifft das abgelaufene Copyright nur die alte Version von Micky Maus, die beispielsweise keine Handschuhe trägt")... Gestumblindi (talk) 19:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- There is no doubt about the publication date. See also the DR, where it was extensively discussed: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mickey Mouse Color Stock Poster (Celebrity Productions era, 1928).jpg. The irony is that, since there is no copyright notice in this poster, this appearance of Mickey is probably in the public domain since 1928. But the point is moot now... Yann (talk) 19:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, this is really interesting information, I will pass it on to German-language's Wikipedia community where we also have a discussion about Mickey Mouse (more of a theoretical one, as we will not use these images for German-language Wikipedia due to the 70 years pma protection in German-language countries). Gestumblindi (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- There is no doubt about the publication date. See also the DR, where it was extensively discussed: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mickey Mouse Color Stock Poster (Celebrity Productions era, 1928).jpg. The irony is that, since there is no copyright notice in this poster, this appearance of Mickey is probably in the public domain since 1928. But the point is moot now... Yann (talk) 19:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- If this poster was really published in 1928, then I "rest my case" and am satisfied - but then I still find it curious that others explicitly say that only the original version of Mickey Mouse without gloves has become public domain, for example here (in German, "Einerseits betrifft das abgelaufene Copyright nur die alte Version von Micky Maus, die beispielsweise keine Handschuhe trägt")... Gestumblindi (talk) 19:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
FM promotion
The file File:Eruption of Fagradalsfjall volcano, 2021-03-24, 2.webm, that you uploaded is now assessed as one of the finest file on Wikimedia Commons, the nomination is available at Commons:Featured media candidates/File:Eruption of Fagradalsfjall volcano, 2021-03-24, 2.webm. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate, please do so at this nomination page. |
Thanks...
Thanks for working through the Featured Media backlog. Did you do it by hand or use a bot? Lorax (talk) 02:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Which criteria is it deleted per COM:SPEEDY? Hide on Rosé (talk) 11:40, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, obvious copyvio, copied from [1]. Yann (talk) 11:55, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, I will delete the original file in viwiki (since it's moved to Commons by an user and got deleted). Hide on Rosé (talk) 13:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Speedy delete
Hello Yann, wondering why you Category:The_chronicles_of_America_series_(1918) had this deleted. Thank you so much for your time. Lotje (talk) 16:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Please delete scale-down copies from file histories
- File:Silhouette of two people looking at stars.jpg
- File:Snowy landscape in Eigergletscher, Lauterbrunnen.jpg
- File:Pexels-photo-753550.jpg
- File:DNA strands.jpg
Hi, Yann, I had some misconceptions about CC licenses and overwrote these files with low-res copies. Just now I realize that CC0 declaration cannot be terminated, please help delete these copies from history. Thank you very much! 0x0a (talk) 06:53, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
You deleted the Ahmedabad Cricket File
What can be done for the file to be added? It was clicked by the bcci themselves Pharaoh496 (talk) 09:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Pharaoh496: So what? Do you have the permission from the copyright holder to copy the file under a free license? Yann (talk) 12:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Validité des droits pour une photo d'Anouchka Delon ?
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2017_Anouchka_DELON_-5834.jpg
Bonjour Yann,
J'espère ton début d'année se déroule comme tu veux. ;)
La photo d'anouchka Delon sur Commons semble n'avoir aucun ticket de validité de la part de la véritable photographe professionnelle (Christine Ledroit-Perrin) qui affiche pourtant bien son copyright, sur le cliché d'origine mais qui n'est pourtant jamais cité (recadré dans la page). Qu'en penses-tu ? Tisourcier (talk) 16:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
- Done En effet. Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Anouchka Delon. Yann (talk) 16:39, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Please remove old version of file (copyright)
Hi Yann,
Can you please remove the old version of File:The Kid scenes.ogv? It has an audio track that should not be there. The video is fine, so I replaced it with an audio-less version.
I will very shortly upload a frame-for-frame replacement for this clip, from a new (much better) transfer of the movie, which I'm currently uploading (waiting for a server-side upload for the full version, since it's almost 4GiB, but no problem with uploading a short clip using the chunked uploader, I presume).
Thanks!
D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 22:37, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Admin's Barnstar | |
Thanks for your continued efforts in cleaning up Copyright infringements. 0x0a (talk) 05:28, 12 January 2024 (UTC) |
Translation notification: Commons:Wiki Loves Folklore 2024
Hello Yann,
You are receiving this notification because you signed up as a translator to French on Wikimedia Commons. The page Commons:Wiki Loves Folklore 2024 is available for translation. You can translate it here:
The priority of this page is medium. The deadline for translating this page is 2024-01-25.
Your help is greatly appreciated. Translators like you help Wikimedia Commons to function as a truly multilingual community.
To unsubscribe or to change your notification preferences for translations, please visit Special:TranslatorSignup.
Thank you!
Wikimedia Commons translation coordinators, 07:14, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Photo of Bunsaku Arakatsu
Hello Yann, is this photo of Bunsaku Arakatsu public domain? See the discussion here. -Artanisen (talk) 10:23, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, this is most probably covered by {{PD-Japan-oldphoto}}. Yann (talk) 10:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi, Yann - please see where the original discussion challenging the id of one of my images was taking place (see my last edit on that page). I shot the image during a trip to Alaska to visit friends who live there, and they told me it was Castner Glacier. While still the challenge is still in discussion, a retired Commons editor came in and made a rename move from File:Castner Glacier.jpg to File:Gulkana_Glacier.jpg before I was able to gather verifiable information confirming the glacier's identification. My image was used here, and in a few articles. The editor challenging the identification provided links to photographs by various photogs, one of which the photog themselves stated they were not sure their image was of Gulkana. "I could be mistaken, this could be Canwell Glacier, also in this general area." In summary, none of what the challenger provided is conclusive evidence as to the ID of the glacier. This image has a lake in front of it, and I never saw that lake during my visit. Can you please look into this? If it turns out that I was misinformed by my Alaskan friends who were kind enough to take us on a guided tour to that location during our travel to Valdez to go fishing, I will take the proper steps to correct the error. I just do not think it's right for it to be moved before I have had an opportunity to confirm and provide verifiable information (there are no GPS coordinates in any of the challenger's evidence). Thx in advance! Atsme Talk 📧 20:58, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Atsme: Hi,
- I am sorry, but I am of little help here. I don't know that place, and I have never been to Alaska, so I can't who is right, or who isn't. There may be people on Commons who know that place. Please ask on COM:VP. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:53, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter if you know it, Yann. What matters is that someone moved the file without permission while a discussion is still ongoing, and that was inappropriate. Atsme Talk 📧 22:08, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Atsme: OK, may be. But what do you want now? It seems to me that renaming it back now isn't the right way to solve this issue. This would be the start of an edit-war. The only way I see is a confirmation of that place. Then it can be renamed. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:13, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hmmm... so I can challenge any image on Commons that I think is misnamed - one that has been in the same place for 8+ years - move it to where I think it should be with no verifiable proof beyond what
aother photographers say (their word only), ignore the ones who say differently, and an admin cannot move it back? I will keep that in mind for future reference. Oh, and they are the ones who have been edit warring. Atsme Talk 📧 22:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)- @Atsme: I don't understand why you are angry after me. They should have got your permission before editing and renaming the image, but Pierre Selim seems to agree with Ron Clausen, and it is true that the images on Flickr labelled as "Gulkana Glacier" are very similar. This may not be a definite proof, but these are reasons to question the name of the place. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- I really think it's unfortunate to have renamed the file before the discussion is settled (no matter what is my opinion on the topic). I should have declined the rename request when I could, another user proceed with the renaming :(
- I think looking for a wider audience on the topic still matters, we want to provide accurate information, Maybe VP or a wiki project where people are knowledgeable about this place. PierreSelim (talk) 12:11, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, PierreSelim. Yann, I could never be angry with you. We go back too many years for that to happen. Admittedly, I was a little frustrated over the impatience of others, and probably more frustrated with myself for not taking better care of my original image files, including the cell phone images that have the GPS coordinates. I'm also reminded of the old adage...Thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken. 🤗 Atsme Talk 📧 16:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Atsme: I don't understand why you are angry after me. They should have got your permission before editing and renaming the image, but Pierre Selim seems to agree with Ron Clausen, and it is true that the images on Flickr labelled as "Gulkana Glacier" are very similar. This may not be a definite proof, but these are reasons to question the name of the place. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hmmm... so I can challenge any image on Commons that I think is misnamed - one that has been in the same place for 8+ years - move it to where I think it should be with no verifiable proof beyond what
- @Atsme: OK, may be. But what do you want now? It seems to me that renaming it back now isn't the right way to solve this issue. This would be the start of an edit-war. The only way I see is a confirmation of that place. Then it can be renamed. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:13, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter if you know it, Yann. What matters is that someone moved the file without permission while a discussion is still ongoing, and that was inappropriate. Atsme Talk 📧 22:08, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
File:A Case of Spring Fever (1940).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. |
SDudley (talk) 22:20, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
- sorry Yann. I didn't realize you had fixed the issue. Thank you. SDudley (talk) 22:26, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Dear Admin Yann F,
A user uploaded this image but from the given source, the text was derived from wikipedia from a free license and no information on copyright is given about the image. The uploader seems to have uploaded quite a few copy vios. The youtube video from the source is not free. If you think the image is not free, please feel free to file a DR. The problem is from a google image search, the image appears to have originated from the source, but the source does not say if it is a free image.
By the way, Happy New Year for 2024. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, I deleted this one, and a few more, started Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Andreas.stockhausen, and warned this user. Thanks for reporting. Yann (talk) 09:12, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help. I have voted in the DR to delete. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 12:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Another one… ★ 18:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
FP Promotion
★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★
The image File:Flo dans Juvsøyla à Rjukan, Norvège-rotated.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Flo dans Juvsøyla à Rjukan, Norvège.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so. |
/FPCBot (talk) 05:01, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Pic de l'Arche, Hautes-Alpes, 20.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.
|