User talk:GO69

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Revision as of 17:10, 7 January 2012 by Eusebius (talk | contribs) (→‎Overcategorization: new section)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, GO69!

Tip: Categorizing images

Afrikaans  العربية  беларуская (тарашкевіца)  বাংলা  català  čeština  dansk  Deutsch  Deutsch (Sie-Form)  Ελληνικά  English  Esperanto  español  فارسی  suomi  français  galego  עברית  magyar  íslenska  italiano  日本語  ქართული  한국어  македонски  മലയാളം  norsk bokmål  Plattdüütsch  Nederlands  norsk  polski  português  português do Brasil  română  русский  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  српски / srpski  svenska  Türkçe  українська  Tiếng Việt  中文(简体)‎  中文(繁體)‎  +/−


Hello, GO69!
Tip: Add categories to your files
Tip: Add categories to your files

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]
[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

CategorizationBot (talk) 10:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

dansk  italiano  sicilianu  Deutsch  català  magyar  čeština  português do Brasil  Esperanto  español  português  English  hrvatski  français  Nederlands  Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎  norsk nynorsk  polski  galego  íslenska  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  Türkçe  Ελληνικά  беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  български  македонски  русский  українська  മലയാളം  日本語  中文(简体)‎  中文(繁體)‎  فارسی  +/−


There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 21:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


dansk  italiano  sicilianu  Deutsch  català  magyar  čeština  português do Brasil  Esperanto  español  português  English  hrvatski  français  Nederlands  Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎  norsk nynorsk  polski  galego  íslenska  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  Türkçe  Ελληνικά  беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  български  македонски  русский  українська  മലയാളം  日本語  中文(简体)‎  中文(繁體)‎  فارسی  +/−


There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 21:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


العربية  беларуская беларуская (тарашкевіца)  ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ  বাংলা  català  čeština  dansk  Deutsch  Deutsch (Sie-Form)  Ελληνικά  English  español  euskara  فارسی  suomi  français  galego  עברית  hrvatski  magyar  հայերեն  italiano  日本語  ಕನ್ನಡ  한국어  lietuvių  latviešu  македонски  മലയാളം  मराठी  မြန်မာဘာသာ  norsk bokmål  Plattdüütsch  Nederlands  norsk  polski  português  română  русский  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  српски / srpski  svenska  ไทย  Türkçe  українська  اردو  Tiếng Việt  中文(简体)  中文(繁體)  +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Eglise St-Nizier de Lyon Portrait de Pauline Jaricot.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT ([email protected]). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

Peter17 (talk) 22:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour GO69,

Il est indispensable d'indiquer qui a peint ce tableau et en quelle année. Pour l'instant, rien ne prouve qu'il est dans le domaine public comme tu l'as indiqué sur la page de description...

Cordialement. Peter17 (talk) 22:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Christ_de_Georges_Salendre_(Chapelle_de_l'Hôpital_Edouard_Heriot_de_Lyon).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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Frédéric (talk) 19:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merci pour tes photos !

Bonjour,

J'ai constaté que tu avais largement contribué ces derniers temps à mieux illustrer certaines de ces petites communes d'Ille-et-Vilaine qui manquent cruellement de photos. Avec quelques contributeurs rennais, nous essayons, tant bien que mal, de combler ces lacunes au gré de nos balades à travers le département et, pour nous servir de guide, j'ai mis au point une sorte de tableau de bord sur Wikipédia : Utilisateur:Pymouss/Suivi Ille-et-Vilaine. Comme toute page wiki, il est bien sûr permis de la modifier ; n'hésite pas à la mettre à jour au gré de tes pérégrinations dans le département !

Bonne continuation, Pymouss Let’s talk - 22:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the correct date format

Hi GO69,

Thank you for your contributions to Commons. I noticed you mentioned a date on File:Antrain (35) Église Saint-André Chapiteau roman.jpg. Please know that in order for dates to be automatically detected and translated into other languages it needs to be in the YYYY-MM-DD format (ie. 2024-01 for January 2024 or 2024-08-07 for 7 August 2024). Also, for other (less specific) dates use {{Other date}} for centuries, ranges, 'circa' etc. like this: {{other date|between|1899|1903}} for "between 1899 and 1903

date QS:P,+1500-00-00T00:00:00Z/6,P1319,+1899-00-00T00:00:00Z/9,P1326,+1903-00-00T00:00:00Z/9

". This way the dates will be translated internally into the user's language preference. I've fixed it for you here. See for example the result in French: here. Thanks again. –Krinkletalk 15:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nommage des catégories

Bonjour, Merci d'éviter de créer des catégories nommées en français (comme Extérieurs de la cathédrale Saint-Samson de Dol-de-Bretagne), à l'exception des noms propres (comme le nom de la cathédrale elle-même, encore que...). La langue de base pour le nommage des catégories est l'anglais, même si les règles ne sont pas toujours très claires dans tous les cas de figure. Cordialement, --Eusebius (talk) 07:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brie-Comte-Robert_(77)_Église_Saint-Étienne_Vitrail_1.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

RE RILLKE Questions? 14:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Je vous prie de bien vouloir m'excuser de vous répondre seulement maintenant. Mon vocabulaire est très limité et j'ai oublié beaucoup de choses.
S'il vous plaît, excuser cette procédure agressive, n'ai pas vu la datation. Parce que je m'm'embrouille sur l'art, je vais bientôt présenter cette image à une personne familière et compétente. J'ai fait cette demande (proposer à la suppression un fichier) parce que il n'y avait la licence appropriée. Je devrais demander, cependant, et faire une recherche sur le web. J'espère que vous n'avez pas effrayé télécharger d'autres fichiers. --RE RILLKE Questions? 20:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Deutsch  English  español  français  magyar  Nederlands  polski  português  svenska  suomi  македонски  українська  日本語  עברית  +/−


Thank you for your submission of File:Brie-Comte-Robert_(77)_Église_Saint-Étienne_Vitrail_1.jpg. While all submissions are useful, do you think you might be able to supply a better quality version of the same, or similar, content? In many cases, the largest and highest resolution possible is the most useful version to have available. (MediaWiki has automatic resizing functionality, so there is no need for multiple versions of the same image at different sizes, users can select any size and the software will generate and cache the needed resolution on the fly.)

If you can supply the same exact image as File:Brie-Comte-Robert_(77)_Église_Saint-Étienne_Vitrail_1.jpg at a larger resolution (or media at a higher bitrate, etc.), please just upload it over the original, users will get the new higher quality version with no further effort on your part. If on the other hand, the content is only similar, it is best to select a new image name, as there may be uses already where some aspect of the existing media was key to the usage. In the latter case, if you can provide a crosslink reference to the new image in the older one and vice versa, that will be extremely helpful.

Again, thank you very much for your contribution, it is appreciated.

RE RILLKE Questions? 20:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Belle photo, mais elle vient d'où ? je suppose qu'il s'agit d'une des mosaïques de Notre-Dame de fourvière, auquel cas il serait intéressant de le noter en description non ? Otourly (talk) 20:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Notification about possible deletion

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

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Otourly (talk) 13:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vitraux évêques de Rennes

Salut,

Juste pour te prévenir que tes photos de débuts janvier des vitraux de Rennes sont une chose que j’attendais depuis longtemps (mais que je n'ai découvert que cette semaine), donc un grand’merci à toi !

Du coup, je viens de lancer le projet blason sur ces vitraux : w:Projet:Blasons/Demande de blason:évêques de Rennes.

Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut. 21:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Attention à la sur-catégorisation

Salut,

Alors que j’étais en train de faire le ménage sur les églises d’Ille-et-Vilaine, je suis tombé sur ta modification suivante. En l’occurence, il est inutile d’ajouter Churches in Ille-et-Vilaine puisqu’il y avait déjà Saint Peter churches in Ille-et-Vilaine.

La règle (non-écrite dommage) sur Commons est de ne pas mettre un fichier dans une catégorie et dans sa sur-catégorie et au contraire de mettre le fichier dans la catégorie la plus précise.

Sinon, j’ai une question à laquelle tu pourrais sans doute réponde : comment trouves-tu sous quel vocable (Saint Patron) se trouve une église ?

En tout cas, merci encore pour tes photos.

Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut. 20:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Base Mérimée/Palissy

Merci pour la rectification. Désolé d'être con. Sebleouf (talk) 04:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"donjon du Capitole"

Merci beaucoup pour la correction de mes bêtises :) Léna (talk) 14:09, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrait de la catégorie "to check"

Bonjour. Merci beaucoup de vouloir aider pour réduire la catégorie des fichiers à vérifier. Toutefois, même si ta catégorisation est bonne, tu retires la catégorie "à checker", alors que tu n'as pas réellement checké la photo comme nous l'entendons. Il faut d'abord vérifier que la notice Mérimée est bonne, que le fichier n'est pas un copyvio (quand l'architecture est récente) et il faut indiquer le type, en utilisant par exemple |type=classé| dans le modèle Mérimée. Par exemple, pour File:Église Saint-Pierre - Senlis-- 01.jpg, la notice Mérimée renvoie à une erreur, il faut retrouver le bon ID et mettre le type avant d'enlever la catégorie "to check". Merci, et désolé si j'ai l'air méchant. Sebleouf (talk) 09:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Je me répète mais je suis vraiment un connard, tu ne me feras pas changer d'avis. Répondre à tes questions semble insurmontable pour moi, c'est irréel, incompréhensible mais c'est pourtant les conneries que je ressens. Excuse moi, très très sincèrement, Sebleouf (talk) 13:01, 1 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Wiki Loves Monuments 2011 has finished

Logo Wiki Loves Monuments 2011 català | dansk | Deutsch | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | français | galego | magyar | Lëtzebuergesch | norsk bokmål | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | polski | português | română | русский | svenska | +/−
Dear GO69,

Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments and sharing your pictures with the whole world. You are very welcome to keep uploading images, even though you can't win prizes any longer. To get started on editing relevant Wikipedia articles, click here for more information and help.
You can find all uploaded pictures in our central media collection Wikimedia Commons. Many photos are already used in Wikipedia. The contest was very successful with more than 165,000 images submitted throughout Europe. To make future contests even more successful, we would like to invite you to share your experiences with us in this survey.

Kind regards,

the Wiki Loves Monuments team
Map of participating countries of Wiki Loves Monuments 2011
Message delivered by Lucia Bot in 22:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Deutsch  English  español  français  magyar  Nederlands  polski  português  svenska  suomi  македонски  українська  日本語  עברית  +/−


Thank you for your submission of File:Verneuil-sur-Avre (27) Maison renaissance.jpg. While all submissions are useful, do you think you might be able to supply a better quality version of the same, or similar, content? In many cases, the largest and highest resolution possible is the most useful version to have available. (MediaWiki has automatic resizing functionality, so there is no need for multiple versions of the same image at different sizes, users can select any size and the software will generate and cache the needed resolution on the fly.)

If you can supply the same exact image as File:Verneuil-sur-Avre (27) Maison renaissance.jpg at a larger resolution (or media at a higher bitrate, etc.), please just upload it over the original, users will get the new higher quality version with no further effort on your part. If on the other hand, the content is only similar, it is best to select a new image name, as there may be uses already where some aspect of the existing media was key to the usage. In the latter case, if you can provide a crosslink reference to the new image in the older one and vice versa, that will be extremely helpful.

Again, thank you very much for your contribution, it is appreciated.

Saibo (Δ) 20:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overcategorization

Hi there. Having seen a few of your recent edits on French cathedral categories, I think you should read this paragraph about over-categorization, which explains why some of your edits might need to be reverted. Best regards, --Eusebius (talk) 17:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]