User talk:Eusebius/Archives/2011

Duchamp

Salut, Petite question par curiosité : pourquoi avoir décatégorisé cette image, alors que les autres images de répliques semblables sont dans la catégorie ? -- Asclepias (talk) 23:53, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

C'était sans doute une erreur, mais j'imagine qu'une catégorie "replicas of Marcel Duchamp's fountain", ou quelque chose dans ce goût-là, serait plus appropriée. --Eusebius (talk) 08:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Reuse of Soleil couchant sur le Vercors file

Hello,

My name is Laura and I moderate a writing website called Write in for Writing's Sake. Each week a writing topic is posted along with a suitable image. I saw your fantastic photograph on Wikicommons and have used it. You can find a link to my post here: http://www.wifws.co.uk/#2635484444

Kind regards, Laura

Hi Laura, thank you for this notification. I'm glad you find this picture useful. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 12:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

your picture

hello my name is ambreanna im 14 years old and i seen the picture you did of the clouds its amazing its beautiful i thinnk that you are an gret photograher as i shoul say an artist at what you do.

Hhi Ambreanna. Thanks, this is very kind of you but I was just lucky with this picture. I was there, I saw something nice, I took a photograph. I'm pretty sure you know more about photography than I knew when I took this picture. Best regards, --Eusebius (talk) 15:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

2 Questions

Bonjour Eusebius, J'ai lu votre réponse sur la page des images de qualités. Deux questions: 1) Est-ce que l'on peut publier des images sur commons en choisissant des licences qui sont contradictoires? 2) Devrait-on avertir personnellement l'utilisateur que sa licence ND-NC n'a aucune force étant donné sa licence GFDL 1.2? Merci beaucoup pour votre réponse! Letartean (talk) 18:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Bonjour. 1) Oui, en fait quand on publie sous plusieurs licences à la fois on donne le choix de la licence à qui veut réutiliser l'image. 2) Elle n'est pas sans effet, à cause du premier point. La licence GFDL est très contraignante, surtout pour des images (il faut en théorie reproduire intégralement le texte de la licence à chaque réutilisation), et c'est sans doute pour cela que c'est la seule licence libre qu'il a choisie, parce qu'il souhaite limiter l'utilisation qui est faite de ses photos : si quelqu'un veut les réutiliser sans s'empêtrer dans les conditions de la GFDL, il devra le faire sous les conditions NC-ND. Ce n'est pas tout-à-fait l'état d'esprit de Wikipédia et de Commons, mais bon techniquement c'est son droit. C'est d'ailleurs ce caractère contraignant de la GFDL qui a amené à construire un "pont" de compatibilité entre la GFDL 1.3 et CC-BY-SA 3.0 et à re-licencier tous les textes collaboratifs et la plupart des contenus multimédia éligibles sous la seconde. Seulement, sur Commons, les utilisateurs pouvaient s'opposer à un ajout explicite de la licence CC-BY-SA, et ça a très probablement été le cas de cet utilisateur, vu comme il utilise les licences.

J'espère que je vous ai plus éclairé qu'embrouillé... --Eusebius (talk) 20:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Merci pour cette réponse! Elle à la fois concise, précise et utile, ce qui est difficile à réussir généralement lorsque l'on parle de licences ! Bonne continuité, Letartean (talk) 21:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Valued images by topic, Cycles and motorcycles

Bonjour Eusebius,
Puis-je ? Un mystère : le 30 janvier 2011, la VI pour "BMW K1300R" est triée dans sa bonne galerie [1]. Pourtant, cette galerie est vide : Commons:Valued images by topic/Objects/Transport and vehicles/Cycles and motorcycles, aucun mouvement dans l'historique depuis le 25 octobre 2010. Une idée ? Merci, --Myrabella (talk) 11:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Tu fais bien, merci. Le script me dit :

****************************************************
Gallery on page Commons:Valued images by topic/Objects/Transport and vehicles/Cycles and motorcycles is malformed; skipping.
Skipped lines:
File:BMW K1300R a.jpg|[[:Category:BMW K1300R|BMW K1300R]]
****************************************************

C'est apparemment CommonsDelinker qui a vexé VICbot en remettant la balise ouvrante et la balise fermante de la galerie sur la même ligne. Je rajoute l'image à la main. --Eusebius (talk) 12:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Merci bien. --Myrabella (talk) 13:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

VIC nomination disabled

Bonjour Eusebius, L'outil de création de VIC ne fonctionne plus du tout quand on passe par la page Commons:Valued image candidates/candidate list et le bouton "Create new image nomination" (description du bug). Quand on essaie directement par la page Commons:Valued image candidates/Nomination procedure, le code de la nomination est mal formé, il manque la chaîne de caractères "{{VIC" au début du code automatiquement généré, avant <includeonly> : exemple. Tu vois de quoi il en retourne ? Merci, --Myrabella (talk) 16:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Non, désolé mais je ne connais pas grand-chose à cette partie. Ca ne m'étonnerait pas que ce soit dû à la mise à jour du logiciel, qui a cassé beaucoup de chose. Je suggère de demander de l'aide sur COM:VP et/ou aux personnes qui ont écrit les bouts de script ou les templates en question... Désolé ! --Eusebius (talk) 18:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

No blème, I am going to think about the bug description in English but not tonight! Merci et à bientôt, --Myrabella (talk) 18:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Patras_Cathedral.jpg

File:Patras_Cathedral.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!

Lupo 22:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

OK thanks! --Eusebius (talk) 07:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Jacques IV en CIQ

Bonjour Eusébius.
J'aime beaucoup ton vitrail de Stirling avec les armoiries de Jacques IV (et de l'Ecosse). J'ai cependant un petit doute sur les proportions, car je trouve l'écu un peu aplati (pas assez oblong) et le collier de l'ordre (français !) de Saint-Michel un peu ovale, alors que la médaille qui y pend est trop ronde. A mon avis, la fenêtre est trop large, ou pas assez longue... Peux-tu me confirmer ton image telle qu'elle est, ou la modifier en conséquence ? Merci de ta réponse.--Jebulon (talk) 13:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Salut. J'ai re-jeté un coup d'oeil à l'original. La photo a été prise quasiment de face, avec très peu de perspective : les proportions doivent être celles du vitrail, à un pouillème près invisible à l'oeil nu en tout cas. --Eusebius (talk) 14:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Drapeaux

Salut. Je vois que tu as remis la cat "acropole" sur ta photo de drapeau. J'avoue que je comprends pas l'intérêt de cette catégorisation dans le contexte de commons. Il s'agit d'une photo de drapeau sans autre élément identifiable le liant à l'acropole, qui n'a pas d'autre lien avec l'acropole que le fait d'y avoir été pris en photo (mais s'il avait été pris ailleurs, on ne verrait pas de différence), qui ne servira pas à illustrer d'article concernant l'acropole (puisque dans ce cas il y a d'autres photos où on voit ce drapeau en situation) mais qui peut par contre servir à illustrer un article sur le drapeau grec ; le tout dans une cat qui a tendance à grossir indéfiniment, le problème de ce genre de sites touristiques.--Phso2 (talk) 12:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Si l'on trouve que la catégorie Acropole devient trop peuplée et désorganisée, il n'y a qu'à créer une sous-catégorie pour le drapeau de l'Acropole, qui en est un élément connu et particulièrement visible. Améliorer la catégorisation est toujours préférable à la détériorer... Cordialement, --Eusebius (talk) 14:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

je vois toujours pas comment cette photo de drapeau standard sur fond de ciel et absolument sans aucun élément relatif à l'acropole, pourrait avoir un intérêt dans la catégorie acropole.--Phso2 (talk) 14:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Que cette catégorisation ne vous soit pas personnellement utile est une chose. Remettre en cause la catégorisation sur la base de la localisation en est une autre. --Eusebius (talk) 17:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Cette page d'aide n'est là que pour inciter les débutants à préciser où se situe la rue ou la montagne dont ils importent la photo, elle ne dit pas qu'il est pertinent de mettre une localisation sur les photos génériques. Le but de la catégorisation sur la base de la localisation, c'est de classer les images d'un paysage, un bâtiment bien définis en fonction de leur localisation : cette photo et celle-ci représentent des drapeaux intégrés à leur environnement, il est donc légitime de les catégoriser par localisation ; celle-ci (la première de la série à avoir été importée, et qui est moins réussie que la vôtre) représente essentiellement un drapeau, qui accessoirement a été pris à l'acropole sans que ce soit perceptible (l'importateur a d'ailleurs pas cru indispensable de mettre la catégorie acropole). Là vous auriez aussi pu prendre ce drapeau dans votre jardin, vu que l'endroit où il a été pris n'apparait absolument pas à l'image et que rien ne permet d'identifier "le drapeau de l'acropole". Enfin bon, puisque vous y tenez, tant pis.--Phso2 (talk) 19:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Liné1bot

(copied from User talk:Liné1bot)
Bonjour Liné1; Liné1bot is fixing many of the galleries I've created and is saving me a lot of work. However, it is making it difficult to read my watch list. Please consider requesting a bot flag for  Liné1bot. Merci, Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
:I discovered that problem today. How do I request this flag ? Cheers Liné1 (talk) 06:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
::Please read Commons:Bots and request a flag, your bot is apparently operating without permission and flag, and its actions appear in watchlists. --Eusebius (talk) 07:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I did request the permission (See here). I don't understand the problem. Can you help me? Thanks Liné1 (talk) 07:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh ok, I can see that you got the permission and your account is actually flagged (sorry). So I don't understand why your edits appear in the watchlists, it must be a technical issue. I did the same thing as you: leave a note on Lar's talk page... I don't know what else to do, sorry. --Eusebius (talk) 08:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

French

Eusebius,

navré d'avoir à ajouter des noms de catégories en français sur Commons mais l'usage unique de la langue anglaise sur ce projet me paraît être des plus réducteurs. Outre qu'il en suppose d'emblée la parfaite maîtrise tant par les contributeurs que par les divers utilisateurs, ce qui reste à démontrer, il conduit à un appauvrissement culturel notoire qui va à l'encontre des finalités du projet Wikipédia. Autant l'usage d'un langage unique peut-il simplifier et homogénéiser des méthodes de classement et donc de recherche, autant ses promoteurs risquent d'être taxés d'impérialisme linguistique. Si la page afférente à la politique en matière de langue sur Commons précise bien que "Wikimedia Commons est un projet multilingue", que "les descriptions sur les galeries, catégories et pages de description de fichiers peuvent être en n’importe-quelle langue et devraient figurer en de multiples langues", que "l’utilisation de modèles de langue est encouragée", "les noms de galeries devraient en règle générale être dans la langue locale", "les modèles peuvent être en n’importe-quelle langue", elle n'impose aucunement l'usage obligatoire de l'anglais. S'il est certes indiqué que "les noms de catégories doivent généralement être en anglais", il s'agit là d'une recommandation et non d'une consigne impérative. Breton, je n'ai personnellement aucune dent contre les anglais avec lesquels ma région a toujours entretenu des liens ténus. Pour autant, mes connaissances des plus rudimentaires en anglais ne me permettent aucunement d'espérer pouvoir catégoriser convenablement dans cette langue les photos que je mets à la disposition de tous sur Commons. A moins de vouloir user de barbarismes ou de tournures incorrectes qui feraient injure aux anglicistes, je préfère utiliser ma langue maternelle en essayant de faire preuve de discernement et de pertinence dans le choix des termes employés. Encore navré, mais tout le monde n'est pas un angliciste chevronné. Très cordialement. GO69.

Salut GO69, en biologie nous avons trouvé depuis longtemps la solution: nous utilisons les noms scientifiques (qui sont internationaux) et le latin.

Mais je ne suis pas sur que cela puisse t'aider ;-)

Clairement commons est un projet multilingue mais surtout international.

• Pour les textes, tu peux mettre sans problème du francais, mais dans une balise {{fr|...}}. De cette manière tout le monde pourra ajouter un texte dans sa langue et on sera bien multilangue. (tu n'as heureusement pas obligation de fournir le texte dans les autres langues ;-))
• Pour les noms de catégories, on ne peut mettre qu'une seule langue. Donc ce n'est pas multilingue. Donc le coté international doit s'appliquer. Donc malheureusement l'anglais s'impose (sauf en biologie ;-)). Dans ton cas, je pense qu'il te faut trouver un contributeur qui pourrait t'aider à renommer tes catégories en anglais.

Amtiés Liné1 (talk) 09:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Bonjour. Je n'ai pas le temps de faire une réponse détaillée mais voilà l'idée générale : le nommage des catégories en anglais est un pis-aller (et le consensus actuel sur Commons) en attendant que les développeurs du logiciel MediaWiki nous permettent d'avoir des catégories multilingues, ce qui est demandé depuis une éternité mais n'est sans doute pas techniquement simple. La catégorisation de concepts autres que des noms propres dans une langue autre que l'anglais est encore plus "réducteur" car elle exclut davantage de lecteurs. Cordialement, --Eusebius (talk) 10:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Patras_cathedral_-_chandelier_2.jpg

File:Patras_cathedral_-_chandelier_2.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!

84.61.155.241 14:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

KML files

@Eusebius, is this still used? --Túrelio (talk) 22:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes, it's still the overlay data of File:Chartres.svg, this is why I reverted the speedy delete. --Eusebius (talk) 07:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Volve loader

Volvo L120E front loader

Hi, I finally geocoded File:Wheel-loader02.jpg and added the new information template and I would like to review its nomination to Valued Image in scope "Volvo L120 front loader". Thanks, MathKnight 19:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

You can just renominate it. --Eusebius (talk) 19:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

How do I do it? When I generate the nomination template the older discussion appears with the decision and red frame. Do I erase that details (decision etc) or do I just add a comment in the style of "now it is geocoded"? Thanks, MathKnight 14:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

You can follow the instructions there (sorry, I pointed to the wrong part of the page) and then add a comment about what changed since last nomination. --Eusebius (talk) 15:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks, I renominated it. MathKnight 09:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Couronne des pairs de France et celles des princes de l'Empire

Bonjour Eusebius, j'ai deux questions pour l'"expert ès couronnes héraldique" que tu est (non, non, ne soit pas modeste : ton travail parle pour toi !) :

1. La première : peut tu me confirmer les propos de www.science-heraldique.com : Le manteau des pairs, doublé d'hermine, brodé aux émaux du blason, était derrière l'écu, lequel était surmonté d'une couronne, doublée d'un bonnet d'azur, sommé d'un gland d'or. Sous la Restauration, l'écu était sommé d'une couronne et posé dans un manteau d'azur, relevé sur les côtés, issant d'une autre couronne, à bonnet d'azur et sommé d'un gland d'or. : je te pose cette question, car je sais ques les très belles couronnes que tu a réalisé ne sont pas glandées ;
2. La seconde : pourrait-tu créer la couronne des princes Eugène de Beauharnais et Joseph Fesch en fonction de ces deux sources : [2] et [3]. Cette dernière est très similaire à la couronne de Roumanie.

D'avance, je te remercie. Cordialement,--Jimmy44 (talk) 19:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

P.S. t'en que j'y suis : un petit cadeau bonus ! (on y voit par exemple l'atypique couronne de Bohême)

Bonjour. Tu vas être déçu, je n'en connais pas plus qu'un autre sur le sujet... J'avais fait une recherche à l'époque et j'avais essayé de faire au mieux, mais c'est tout ! Apparemment ce que nous avions fait était plus ou moins cohérent avec ce que l'on trouve dans l'armorial du camp du drap d'or, qui concerne François premier (et les couronnes des pairs ont été faites à part, je ne suis pas sûr qu'elles étaient décrites alors). Ca nous avait semblé à peu près cohérent avec ce qui s'était fait pendant l'ensemble de l'ancien régime, mais je sais que le design des couronnes n'a pas du tout été constant dans l'histoire (il y a eu des débats sur la couleur du bonnet royal, notamment, qui apparaît souvent bleu et pas rouge). En ce qui concerne le gland du bonnet des pairs, je n'en sais fichtre rien. Je suis désolé ! Je n'ai pas plus de sources que toi.

En ce qui concerne ta requête de création, je suis navré mais je n'ai pas du tout le temps. Je n'ai même plus le temps de traiter mes propres photographies et je me suis désengagé de toutes mes responsabilités vis-à-vis de Commons et de la fondation parce que j'ai trop de boulot... Encore une fois, désolé ! --Eusebius (talk) 08:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Pas de soucis Eusebius, je te remercie quand même ! Cordialement,--Jimmy44 (talk) 12:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Emil_Kraepelin.png

File:Emil Kraepelin.png

I have tagged this file either because it has no source whatsoever, or because the given source does not give enough information about its author or its date, making the copyright status of the file incertain, or maybe because the uploaded image is a derivative of one or several unsourced works. In any case, please don't ignore this message, contact me instead if you have more information or if you want to discuss the issue. Eusebius (talk) 07:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

You are right, we should delete this image. I cant find no license. Khutuck Bot (talk) 07:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Permission to run and bot flag

Hi, I'm not sure your bot has been approved. Please see Commons:Bots. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 08:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

You are right. I was testing my script in tr.wikipedia, where i have bot status. I did not consider the fact that i dont have a bot flag here. I will ask for approval, or ask for someone who already has approval. Khutuck (talk) 11:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

OK. For now, I'm concerned about the fact that your bot does not import all the information from the source wiki (or was is a specific case with this picture moved from en to tr and from tr to Commons?), and that it moves images with no valid sourcing. Also, I guess there is a procedure for tagging images for deletion on the Turkish Wikipedia, like the {{NowCommons}} template on en.WP? Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 13:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

A very small item

There is a category at the bottom of my user page that says "Reviewed requests for unblock." As far as I know there is no further need for that to be there, and I would be grateful if you could remove it.

(I just did a little cleanup on my talk page. When I started I was logged in. Somehow I got logged out, and all the changes show as IP edits. I have no idea how that happened.)

Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi. This category is automatically added by the unblock request template you have on your talk page ({{Unblock declined}}). If you remove it from your talk page, the category will disappear. However, you should probably archive it somewhere instead of deleting it. FYI I am not an admin anymore. --Eusebius (talk) 19:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, now I understand. Sorry to hear that you are no longer an administrator because you were one of the most rational, and helpful, of the administrators I had dealt with. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Nouvelles galeries VI

Coucou Eusebius, Je sais bien que tu n'as plus guère le temps à présent, mais pourrais-tu cependant jeter un œil à cette proposition Commons talk:Valued image candidates/candidate list#Topics, et indiquer si cela te semble possible de lancer ces créations juste comme ça, ou s'il y a aussi quelque chose à faire sur les robots VICbot et Eusebot. Thanks a lot, --Myrabella (talk) 14:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done, merci de l'info. Comme d'hab, fais-moi signe si un des robots semble perdre les pédales. Peut-être qu'un jour j'aurai le temps de m'y remettre... :-) --Eusebius (talk) 15:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

A picture used in a presentation

I'm using your picture on le château de Tours obtained via Wikipedia for a school presentation on Tours.

I'm crediting you, as requested, in my references.

Thank you for taking the picture.

130.230.95.15 11:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC) Vili Forsell

Thanks for this notification! Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 11:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Attribution

Greetings. I hope you are enjoying your vacation from Administrator. I say "vacation" because I hope it is just that -- that you will rejoin our ranks some time in the future.

Anyway, I'm here because I happened to see your template User:Eusebius/Credits, which says

"Feel free to use my pictures, but always credit me as the author as specified below (as required by the licence) and send me an email or a message."

It seems to me that it overreaches the license just a bit -- the "always" modifies both clauses and that therefore you require a message.

Perhaps

"Feel free to use my pictures, but always credit me as the author as specified below (as required by the licence). In addition, I would appreciate it if you would send me an email or a message."

or

"Feel free to use my pictures. The license requires that you credit me as the author as specified below, and I would appreciate it if you would send me an email or a message."

or something similar.

We've cracked down fairly hard on some users for this kind of thing and I'm uncomfortable not being as tough on one of our most prolific contributors.

Regards,      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi. You're totally right. This is absolutely not what I meant. I was just trying to be as compact as possible, but I didn't see this issue. I'll do something about that, thanks. --Eusebius (talk) 13:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Better, I hope. --Eusebius (talk) 13:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

URGENT

Bonjour, je vous ai contacté en 2009. Depuis tout va bien avec Commons mais je rencontre un problème considérable ce matin qui me désespère quelque peu. Pourrais-je vous contacter par email ? --Schnäggli (talk) 18:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC) et--Schnäggli (talk) 18:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Si vous voulez. --Eusebius (talk) 20:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

OTRS issue

Can you please consider giving your input at Commons:Deletion requests/File:1 Peso AA.jpg , per your edit at File:Seguridad200.jpg? You may, or may not, have something to add per that OTRS ticket. Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done --Eusebius (talk) 06:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Weather station National Observatory of Athens

Hi Eusebius, I see you have contributed a nice photo of the National Observatory of Athens: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Athens_-_observatory_and_church.jpg Does it happen to you to have also a photo of the temperature weather station at NOA? It should look approximately like this: http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/8339/emystathmosfiladelfia1.jpg (The Nea Philadelphia weather station in Athens). Based on what is known thanks to public documents, it should be located very close the NOA building you photographed.

Thanks and best regards. --Amending (talk) 15:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. Sorry, I have no picture of this station! I took the picture of the Observatory while going to the Acropolis and I wasn't even aware that it was an observatory, I was more interested by the archaeological sites. Sorry! --Eusebius (talk) 16:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, and thanks for your reply. I understand well that taking photoes of weather stations is not precisely a common turistical interest  ;)

The high pole you can see in your picture is the observatory's anemometer. The other instruments are there, next to the building, but they can not be seen in public access materials at the moment. That weather station is an interesting case and I am trying to collect some more information, because in meteorological sampling how instruments are installed makes the difference between good and poor measurements. Best regards and thankyou for taking into consideration my extravagant enquiry. --Amending (talk) 13:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem, good luck in your quest... --Eusebius (talk) 05:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Promoted VI problem (VICbot)

Salut Eusebius!
Promoted VI candidates by User:Lokal_Profil some times not processed by VICbot. I can't find this problem solving.
Respectueusement, -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it's a signature issue. The bot does not like non-standard signatures, we had the problem with Romanceor : it does not recognize them. The "nominator" parameter should be modified manually to fit the standard format for the bot to process the candidate. I'm sorry but I don't have time to do it myself right now though... Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 18:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Category:Alumni of the University of Alberta‎

Hello. The reason I removed the "People of Alberta" category is because attendance at a school doesn't necessarily make you "of" that location (in the sense that being born, or maintaining a permanent residence, would). UofA is a large, internationally-renown school that attracts people from all over, and a number of students maintain permanent residences outside the province. Heck, it's not unusual for Grad students to not even maintain a temporary residence in a university town for a good portion of the time they take to get the degree. Because you are an alumnus does not mean you are an Albertan. In many cases, it is Albertans that attend the school, and media and categories pertaining to such people should be categorized separately in Category:People of Alberta. This isn't a UofA issue -- typically, we don't see alumni categories categorized in "People of [location]" parent categories because it's highly arguable whether a stint as a student in and of itself renders one a Quebecker, or a Nova Scotian, or a Californian, or a Parisien, etc. (as the case may be). I fully appreciate the opposite argument, but we tend to be very circumspect with categorization of people (esp. living persons), and tend to avoid categorizations that are so debatable. Hope that helps. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Of course I understand his position. I think our disagreement is based on different understandings of "People of X" categories. I do not read that as "born in", rather as "somehow (relevantly enough) related to". I don't think we should have both "People from", "People of", "People in" cats to differentiate the nuances, but keeping only the birthplace as a geographic reference a person is usually not enough. Regarding universities, I remember spending an awful lot of time renaming/moving/editing alumni and faculty categories with the advices of Foroa (I finally gave up), and I added "People of" cats whenever I could. For alumni, maybe you're right (although I'd personnally keep the cat anyway). But for Faculty at least, I think we should keep the relationship to the University location, because the academic work performed as "faculty of..." is probably the reason why the person is relevant to us and it attaches more strongly the character to the place. Anyway, discussions about categorization can be endless, I won't fight for any position (which means I won't revert again), and if a consensus emerge about a "People [relation] [location]" category schema, I'll be more than happy to make by best to stick to it (but I have rarely seen a real consensus regarding categorization, unfortunately). Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 14:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

You raised a number of good points, to which I will respond in order:

1. I do not believe (nor did I say) that "People of [location]" categories are limited to birthplace. Like you, I read it as being anyone born in a place, or who lives (lived) in a place.

2. Notwithstanding #1 above, I think the link between students and a location is somewhat tenuous, unless that student stays in the location after graduation. Each case needs to be assessed on its merits (rather than including all alumni). I have explained that point above, and won't bore you further, except to say that it is a bit like politicians who temporarily reside in a capital city while they serve their constituents back home. For example, we do not include all past and present members of the U.S. Congress in Category:People from Washington, D.C., except perhaps for those politicians that continued to reside in Washington D.C. after their terms of office were over.

3. I agree with you completely about faculty. To use the example before us, professors and other teaching staff at UofA usually consider Edmonton to be their permanent residence in a way that many students do not.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I guess we agree then. Additional note: I think the English Wikipedia is rather "inclusive" in its "People of" usage, I guess it influenced mine when I dealt with US alumni/faculty cats. I reverted my revert. Thanks for this discussion. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 20:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Interesting you should say that. I checked the corresponding en-wp category for UofA alumni, and it wasn't categorized in a People of/from Alberta category. However, I did not check any further, so maybe UofA is an anomaly. I will have to look into that. Thanks for the tip. This was a good discussion. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

It's more like a personal impression, and I guess it might refer more to individual articles than to alumni cats. --Eusebius (talk) 20:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

A favor, please

Would you take a look at User_talk:ComputerHotline#Attribution? I think I'm clear in English, but my French is not up to this and apparently ComputerHotline doesn't understand. Thanks,      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:57, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not sure you are right, actually. While I trust you on the fact that the CC licences do not impose reusers to respect the author's requirement over the location of the attribution text (I didn't check the licences, and I won't), I fail to see how it can forbid the author to make such a request. When Thomas says "Please credit [...] in the immediate vicinity of the image", it is nothing more than a request. He does not imply that it is a requirement of the chosen licence. I hope you understand my point. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 16:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

partial QI-bot problem

Hi Eusebius,

can you proof why the QI-bot does not inform me today although four pictures was promoted as QI (File:Chur - GR - Martinskirche.jpg, File:Koaxialkabel.JPG, File:Goetheanum von Süden.jpg, File:Egringen - Evangelische Kirche8.jpg)? Greetings --Wladyslaw (talk) 12:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Apparently the bot encountered a problem when editing your talk page (are you the only one? from the report it seems that the error occured only with your talk page). I don't know the root cause, because the only info I have is "AP unknown error 231", which seems to be linked to a recent mediawiki bug. I guess you'll be able to rebuild the notice yourself? --Eusebius (talk) 14:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I guess that I am the only one, but I don't know exactly. Maybe there was a collision with the VI-bot that informed me similar the same time as QI-bot would do. But this should not happend. I have informed you instead of DSchwen because he is rarely online last time. But if only he can fix this bug I will report it him. Thank you for investigating so far. --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Your photo

Hello,

I reuse your photo of Nantes Erdre in the fr:École atlantique de commerce page. Many thanks !

Liloutenbordemer (talk) 11:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)Liloutenbordemer

No problem. When reusing a photograph on Wikipedia, you don't need to explicitly credit the author. Insert a description instead. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 11:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Parthenon facade

You uploaded a beautiful and potentially useful pic of the Parthenon facade. .....and then committed sacrilege on it!

I tried to use it for the specific purpose of demonstrating the subtlety with which the Ancient Greeks adjusted the proportions of their buildings to account for distortions caused by perspective, and the way that they tapered columns gently into the centre of the building from some imagined point high in the sky, and the way they rose the centre of the base of a large building up by a couple of inches, so it looked straight. And how they put the outer columns closer together than the inner ones for an appearance of strength.

OK! So I looked at your pic on Commons, and what did I find? You had done the whole, horrible, artificial, 21st century, digital correction of the geometry of the building which just possibly has the mst perfect geometry of any building in the world!

In other words, all the columns had been straightened up in sheer defiance of visual perspective, so as to appear to be falling outward off the plinth! The base was so flat that the rain would never drain off it, and the entablature resembled a billiards table at a country pub (a few gouges out of it, but basically level).

You are breaking my heart! You are causing Ictinos and Callicrates to turn over in their graves. Phidias will come back from the dead and chisel your ears off! Vitruvius will haunt your dreams and force you to assume the shape of a pentacle! You are causing absolute angst! I beg you, please, please, please do not employ a computer to "correct" your otherwise beautiful architectural pictures.

P.S. I put it back the way it should be, and if anyone reverts it, I will track them down and make them swallow hemlock......(no, that's too nasty) .......... maybe just shove the flowering spike of an acanthus plant up their nostril. Amandajm (talk) 07:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I did not know about the geometric details, but even with what you say, the uncorrected version is much worse than the corrected one, because the optical system and orientation of the camera induce, apart from geometric distorsion, a false sense of perspective. To illustrate the phenomenon you want to show, you need someone to take the picture with a technical photographic chamber or another apparatus guaranteeing you that the plane of the film or sensor is absolutely parallel to the plane of the facade. In any other case (like in this picture), the strong "false perspective" induced by the angle of the image plane obfuscates the perspective subtleties you are talking about. In other words, what you are showing your audience is not the work on perspective made by the architects, but a well-known and unavoidable optical aberration. I hope you understand what I tried to explain. --Eusebius (talk) 08:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: Since this picture has already been assessed as a "Quality Image", we should not alter it. Instead, I have uploaded an uncorrected version of the picture here, if you need it. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 08:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, that "false sense of perspective" or "aberration" is present when the human eye looks at the building, as well as the camera lens. Although the camera may distort it.

Most people don't think about what they see, and presume they see in things in straight lines, because they know they are straight. I would rather teach people to see.

Trust me, the non-corrected image of the Parthenon is much more like what the eye see than your "corrected" image.

One of the things that so often gets lost in these alterations is the sense of the height of a building.

• In general, I'm distressed by the abuse of images on Wiki Commons.

Major artworks get "cleaned up" or have "colour correction" done to them by people unfamiliar with the original. The result varies from simple inaccurate to just plain ghastly!

Prints and drawing have their borders cropped by people who have a passion for cleaning-up prints. Prints, be they book-plates or engraved prints always have a border.

Works on fawn, cream or ivory paper are given white backgrounds.

Works in sepia are turned to black and white. Photos receive a very similar treatment.

And then the doctored picture appear on the mainpage of Wikipedia with the person who has run photoshop over it creditted as "restorer"! Coming as I do from a museum/conservation/artist background, I invariably shudder and go searching for the original.

Thank you for uploading an "unfixed version!

Amandajm (talk) 10:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I have just used your "uncorrected" version of the pic in the article. And checked out the "corrected" version again.

Let me assure you that your "corrected" version (regardless of how highly valued for its clarity and all the rest, gives a false impression. I just ran a straight edge over the entablature, and the stylobate in your pic, and found them to be straight. They are not straight. In fact both curve upwards.

You have aligned all the columns nicely, probably presuming that their centres are parallel. They are 'not parallel. All the columns, even the centre two, slope inwards.

Straightening everything has created a very much worse distortion than that created by the camera, which merely somewhat increased the curves and leans carefully put in place by the architects.

Please, when you take these lovely shots, that I am going to want to use, just leave me one that hasn't been messed with!

Amandajm (talk) 10:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The towers of Notre-Dame de Paris are perfectly vertical and parallel, and this kind of perspective cannot be observed without the distortion of a wide-angle camera lens.

"Yes, that "false sense of perspective" or "aberration" is present when the human eye looks at the building, as well as the camera lens." No, that's not true. The perspective distortion I'm talking about is specific to photographic lenses with a non-normal focal length (in fact a non-normal view angle), and it depends on the lens's orientation. A wide-angle lens oriented upwards, as it is the case here, exaggerates perspective (and therefore relative sizes), and in only one direction. The columns could be totally vertical, or even converging at the base rather than at the top, and the picture would still look like that. Again, you cannot see what you're talking about in a picture like that, and pretending it is deceiving. --Eusebius (talk) 11:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Henri Lacordaire

Hi Eusebius,

I removed your request at [4] as the Wikipedia article has the same title. Please add {{Move}} to the category if you are still considering having it moved. --  Docu  at 07:24, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done. --Eusebius (talk) 20:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Lycée turc en VI

Salut.
Ce n'est pas une mauvaise idée, si ?
J'espère que cette initiative ne t'ennuie pas !--Jebulon (talk) 20:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Ben non, du tout, c'est pour ça que j'avais uploadé la photo en fait... Ce que je voulais dire c'est que j'avais créé une page de nomination (tu n'avais peut-être pas remarqué mais tu as édité celle que j'avais créée), j'avais juste oublié de la lister ! --Eusebius (talk) 05:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Utilisation d'image

Bonjour ! I have used your image of the nave of Amiens seen from the triforium, in an online arts appreciation course I am developing for Florida Gulf Coast University, Fort Myers. Thank you for contributing this rare and beautiful view to the Commons. 2.13.19.218 07:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)Anne-Marie Bouché (ambouche@fgcu.edu).

Thanks for this notification. I'm glad you find this picture useful. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 08:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Utilisation Photo Théâtre Graslin

Bonjour, je représente le site OperaOnline.

Je tenais à vous dire que nous avons utilisé votre photo pour illustrer la fiche du dit théâtre. Merci pour votre travail.

PS : nous ne pouvons malheureusement pas vous envoyer, pour l'instant, l'adresse du lien ou figurera votre photo car le site est encore en béta.

Bien à vous.

Pierre BEAUDONNET OperaOnline

Bonjour, je vous remercie de votre message. Je suis ravi que vous trouviez cette photo utile. N'oubliez pas de me créditer comme l'auteur ! Cordialement, --Eusebius (talk) 15:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Pavillon Vendôme

Hello Eusebius, J'ai remis ta photo du pavillon Vendôme pour le portail Aix-en-Provence de fr:WP, car les images sélectionnées y tournent sur 12 mois. Elle sera donc affichée en mai 2012, si elle n'est pas remplacée entretemps. --Myrabella (talk) 08:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

OK OK. --Eusebius (talk) 09:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Formules.JPG

Dear Mr. Piolle:

I just wanted to let you know that I used the above picture for the 29th volume to Librivox's Short Science Fiction Collection. File:Short Science Fiction Collection Vol 029 1108.pdf. It should be posted here http://librivox.org/short-science-fiction-collection-029/ in a day or so.

Sincerely,

216.252.204.242 18:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)Janette Brown, 8/11/2011 @ 14:21 EDT

Thank you for the notification. I'm glad you find this picture useful. Best regards, --Eusebius (talk) 20:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Utilisation de photo

Bonjour Monsieur, je voudrais vous informer que j'ai utilisé votre photo File:Rayon_de_soleil_et_hirondelle_2.jpg pour cette composition. J'aimerais aussi vous remercier d'avoir partagé cette très belle photo sur Wikimedia Commons. Bonne journée ! Bryan P. C. C. (talk) 11:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Bonjour et merci pour la notification ! Ravi que vous ayiez trouvé l'image utile. Cordialement, --Eusebius (talk) 15:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

hello

Category:Female politicians Has got to go.

Thank you. -- Queeg (talk) 14:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Really? Please point me to the related discussion, because I cannot find any at Commons:Categories for discussion. I cannot figure out myself a valid reason for this category to be removed. --Eusebius (talk) 16:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

At the pump. -- Queeg (talk) 03:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that yesterday. Since the discussion is far from reaching a consensus for deletion, please put your untagging job on hold in the meantime. In my personal opinion it is very unlikely that the discussion concludes to deletion because MediaWiki still lacks the technical cross-category capabilities that we have been waiting for years. --Eusebius (talk) 04:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

"Cross referencing" will fail even when it does work for the lack of categorization -- it is and will be much easier to get rid of gender segregation than it will be to impose it upon both genders. Can you provide a reason to protect the ability to cross reference "female politicians" which does not also provide a reason to cross reference "male politicians"? -- Queeg (talk) 07:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

There is a misunderstanding here. I never wanted to start a debate with you about what you think is "gender segregation". My message only was "stick to the established procedures and respect community consensus", because you were enforcing your own personal opinions. --Eusebius (talk) 10:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

This is a little "capricious", but the discussion of what the consensus wants when the consensus is only enthusiastic to maintain sexism and not apply it equally is kind of boring. I was surprised that this was not uploaded by you File:Dog Drinking in Slow Motion (Berger Blanc Suisse called Bonny).ogv.

EOT. --Eusebius (talk) 14:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Ticket OTRS

Salut Eusebius, Je te signale une question que j'ai posée sur Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#Third opinion needed about ticket 2008031910023091 et qui concerne notamment une vérification d'un ticket OTRS que tu avais effectuée il y a environ deux ans. L'avis que tu avais donné à ce moment-là était que le ticket ne constituait pas une autorisation de l'architecte concerné pour ce fichier, et ton avis avait entraîné la suppression du fichier en question. Toutefois, lors d'autres discussions, d'autres participants OTRS avaient affirmé que ce fichier et d'autres sont bien visés par un ticket constituant une autorisation valide de l'architecte. Autrement dit, la situation semble un peu confuse pour les utilisateurs ordinaires qui ne peuvent pas lire les tickets OTRS et qui doivent essayer de faire le tri dans les bribes d'informations apparemment divergentes transmises par le filtre des divers participants OTRS. Je ne sais pas qui a tort ou qui a raison, ne pouvant moi-même lire les tickets OTRS. A priori, ton opinion sur ce point semble minoritaire, ce qui m'étonne un peu, vu que je sais que tes commentaires sur ce type de questions sont en général fort pertinents. Bref, si tu le souhaites, peut-être pourrais-tu contribuer à clarifier davantage cette question afin qu'on puisse savoir ce qu'il en est. Merci. -- Asclepias (talk) 02:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Bonjour. Je ne suis plus un volontaire OTRS, je n'ai plus d'accès privilégié. Mais ce que tu me dis ne m'étonne pas du tout, une des raisons de mon choix de me retirer d'OTRS est qu'une grande partie des tickets sont validés à tort et à travers (c'est peu de le dire) et que je ne voulais donc plus être mêlé à cette procédure qui relevait du grand n'importe-quoi. Je ne peux pas te donner d'informations plus précises sur ce ticket, mais visiblement ce sont des photos qui ont besoin d'une autorisation du photographe ET de l'architecte (parce que les photos sont des oeuvres dérivées de bâtiments protégés par le droit d'auteur et qu'elles proviennent d'un pays qui n'a pas de droit de panorama compatible). Apparemment l'autorisation de l'architecte était manquante lorsque j'ai conclu à la suppression. Si un agent OTRS affirme que le ticket est valide, c'est soit que la permission de l'architecte a bien été reçue par la suite, soit que l'agent s'est contenté de vérifier la permission du photographe sans regarder plus loin que le bout de son nez, ce qui était le comportement majoritaire à une certaine époque. Il est possible aussi que le photographe représente en fait le cabinet d'architectes et que la situation ait été clarifiée postérieurement à mon message (j'ai le souvenir que c'est arrivé au moins une fois). Voilà, je suppose que ça ne t'aide pas beaucoup... --Eusebius (talk) 07:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Deuxième coup d'oeil : d'après ce que dit Adrignola, le ticket comporte une permission des architectes. J'ai évidemment oublié la dernière possibilité, qui est que je me sois trompé sur ce ticket depuis le début. --Eusebius (talk) 07:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

North Transept rose at Chartres

North Rose Chartres

Greetings, Guillaume! I just wanted to let you know that your wonderful picture is now the leading picture in the English wikipedia article Stained glass. Amandajm (talk) 11:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the notification! --Eusebius (talk) 13:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Using Chartres - Cathédrale - Rosace Nord in a book

Hi, I'm just following your instructions to notify you that we (InterVarsity Press and author James Emery White) are using your photo in an upcoming publication titled *A Traveler's Guide to the Kingdom,* to be released in April or May of 2012. Please contact me (Elaina) at ewhittenhall (at) ivpress (dot) com if you would like a copy of the book when it is published. Thanks! Elaina 09/29/2011207.227.23.131 15:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for the notification! I'll contact you by e-mail. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 16:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Duomo di Treviso

I think you don't know the difference from an civil discrit (in Italy called "comune" as well municipality) and a Roman Catholic diocese, two territories because are two amministrative systems. Please see fr:Diocèse and my work in many categories of churches.--Threecharlie (talk) 12:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I am aware of the distinction, thank you. You probably misunderstood me, or I didn't explain properly. My updates are based on the assumption that all of the municipality of Treviso is included in the diocese of Treviso. If there is a part of the city of Treviso which is excluded from the diocese, then I did make a mistake. --Eusebius (talk) 17:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

No problem :-) I try to explain and excuse me if my english is poor... In this case, you're right, the municipality of Treviso (and, naturally, the city)is entirely within the Diocese of Treviso in Italy but since it is not always the case, I prefer to standardize all the categories in this way to avoid someone, it is not very conversant, he think this is normal. Also so you avoid having a class with the same structure as the categories for the diocese ordered by name of the patron saint, not by location. Excuse me if I was not clear, to be sure not to write inaccuracies I help me with google translate ... :-(--Threecharlie (talk) 19:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I think I understand what you mean, but I'm afraid you're introducing over-categorization in the categorization system... --Eusebius (talk) 19:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course you can voice your opinion and mine is a overcategorisation, I do not think there is another way to ask the community about an opinion, with serenity, and I will adjust to the consensus. Where do you think is better to express the problem? At the Village Pump?--Threecharlie (talk) 21:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

You can have a discussion at the Village Pump, or at COM:CFD, more specialized but much less busy. --Eusebius (talk) 04:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Archducal conronets...

Hii, I saw you moved it and just wanted to know why..? Songsblame (talk) 14:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I moved several categories in this area. Some where in the singular form (category names should be in the plural form), and in some cases the category inclusion was in the wrong direction. It is always possible that I made a mistake somewhere, though. --Eusebius (talk) 20:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Cool beans :) I was confused. Hope you are ok Songsblame (talk) 22:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Use of photo

Please be advised I used your photo of a Greek Temple of a discussion on Youtube about Greece's economy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.231.116.81 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC) (UTC)

Thanks for the notification... --Eusebius (talk) 10:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hello Guillaume -

Thank you for posting your lovely 2008 shot of the Parthenon. I'm finishing my thesis and wanted to show how source works like the Parthenon have influenced American architecture (Greek Revival style). I'll be pairing up your shot with one of Quincy Market in Boston to illustrate the influence. Since I live an hour away from Boston, the Quincy Market shot will not be an issue, but flying to Athens would be a bit trickier...

Thanks again!

Best - Kent Millard November 14, 2011 134.140.98.159 22:50, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Kent, thank you for this notification. I'm glad you find this picture useful. Best regards, --Eusebius (talk) 06:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Valued image candidate, changed scope

Hi Eusebius,

I changed the scope for Valued image candidates/Interior of St. Vitus Cathedral Prague 01.jpg. Would you please reconsider your "temporary oppose". --Aconcagua (talk) 08:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Noted, thanks. --Eusebius (talk) 12:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I obviousely don't know as much about the form used by most other architectural subscopes as you do. I changed the scope to "Interior of St. Vitus Cathedral" as you suggested in your temporary oppose. Did I get something wrong? --Aconcagua (talk) 13:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not about knowing anything, the syntactic form is given by the guidelines... It's ok as it is now, thank you. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 06:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Nantes_-_Erdre.jpg

File:Nantes_-_Erdre.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!

Pleclown (talk) 17:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Hanging_Flattened_Brass_Section.jpg

I have been using your picture on my site for a while and have not given credit to you - i just figured out where it came from. Also I had someone who make flat instruments as art and is wondering what museum was it in and who was the artist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newyorkbrass (talk • contribs) 20:05, 23 Deecember 2011 (UTC) (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your message, it is appreciated (maybe you can provide a link to your website?). I took this picture at the Victoria and Albert museum in London (in 2004, 2005 or 2006). I'm afraid I was not very careful when I took the picture and I don't know the identity of the artist... Unfortunately, it was a temporary exhibit and it was not possible for other wikimedians to take other pictures or get more info about the work. Best regards, --Eusebius (talk) 15:39, 24 December 2011 (UTC)