User talk:Yann

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ বাংলা ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ हिन्दी ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ 한국어 ∙ кыргызча ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ Nederlands ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ Simple English ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

/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 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64

You can leave me a message in English or French, at the bottom. Click here. Yann 22:13, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Obvodny kahal Embankment at west from Novo-Kamenny bridge.jpg

Hi! I didn't see that discussion (didn't get the notifications). Maybe this is "not uncommon practice", but I find this practice offensive to the author of the original photo. As the uploader of this file, I urge you that this file be removed from my uploads. Anyone can upload this again as they see fit. --Kaganer (talk) 09:51, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) It's easier for future undeletion to just hide the original image but keep the original uploader information. As I said in the DR, if Russia does have commercial FOP for artwork in the future, the original version can be immediately undeleted then. Abzeronow (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose this treatment of historical photos and do not agree to participate in their distortion. There is no value in preserving information about the original uploader. As the uploader of the photo, I ask that it be removed from my contribution. Anyone who sees value in it can upload it themselves, from the same source. Since you have made the decision to save this photo in a similar way - please upload it on your own behalf (with mandatory attribution of the changes made). --Kaganer (talk) 11:35, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done Original version is deleted so that your name is hidden to the public. Abzeronow (talk) 19:50, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion requests/File:Christian Gasser2

Hi

This image does not infringe image rights. It can therefore remain on Wiki Commons. IJ1815 (talk) 11:37, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@IJ1815: Who is the photographer? As it was published outside Commons before, we need a permission from the copyright holder via COM:VRT. Thanks, Yann (talk) 14:12, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Need you help

Hello @Yann, hope you are doing well. Can you please tell me if uploading [2] is ok. Its released under GODL, but has a painting of Golwalkar guruji which is someone else's work. Although that portrait is affixed there permanently and is accessible to all the visitors. Will uploading it here be ok per COM:FOP India? Shaan Sengupta^Talk 12:11, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Shaan Sengupta: No, FOP in India doesn't allow 2D work. How old is the painting? The picture is OK, but the painting should probably be blurred. Yann (talk) 14:10, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Block Commons

Dear colleague @Yann. I noticed you have block me on Commons, due to my inappropriate licence to edit picture ^[1] and I used, in good will, BM offered licence (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). But in next sequence I didn't understand well what mistake I made and You decided to block me. It was my fault. Please accept my deep apologies for this. I am 85 old and systematically study the history of Ancient Egypt. I have been editing on WIKI since 2009 and put more than a thousand images on Commons, without a similar crisis case. So I pleas you to open door into Commons for me again. ^[2] Sincerely Zemanst (talk) 14:23, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Zemanst: Hi, I didn't block you entirely because you are here for some time. Please fix the license of your files, and you will be unblocked. If you need help, please ask on the Village Pump. Yann (talk) 14:26, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Yann

I have done for all files you mentioned previously. Do you see any further problem file? Zemanst (talk) 18:10, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

uploading photos

Yann, After an extensive discussion with my home institution, I got them to provide the required permission. I include here email from them. Do I need to have them send this directly to wikimedia commons? If so, how?Dear Dr. Cahn:

I, as the Commercialization and Software Agreements Manager in the technology transfer office at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (managed and operated by the University of California for the U.S. Department of Energy), on behalf of Berkeley Laboratory, license the below photographs under a CC BY-SA 4.0 license.

XBD9609-04192

XBD9609-04193

© 2010 The Regents of the University of California, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. This work is licensed via CC BY-SA 4.0.

XBD200411-00563-01

© 2010 The Regents of the University of California, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. This work is licensed via CC BY-SA 4.0.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Kind Regards, Sebastian Ainslie Commercialization Manager Intellectual Property Office Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory CPViolation (talk) 18:13, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CPViolation: Yes, they should send the permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Yann (talk) 18:55, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Misunderstanding regarding undeletion request

Hi. You declined this undeletion request (File:A Castillo Picture.jpg) "as per Abzeronow", but I think you misunderstood what Abzeronow said (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong!). I believe Abzeronow meant that the file was originally uploaded with an own work license and that it is this claim of original authorship that is "now basically untrue" based on the evidence provided (that being the city website), with the correct license thus being {{PD-FLGov}}. Curbon7 (talk) 19:18, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Curbon7 is correct in my meaning, I probably should have worded my statement differently. Abzeronow (talk) 19:19, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Curbon7 and Abzeronow: Ah OK. Fixed. Yann (talk) 19:23, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You for Your Contributions to Wiki Loves Folklore 2025!

Dear Contributor,

A heartfelt thank you for being part of Wiki Loves Folklore 2025! Your incredible contributions have helped document and preserve the world’s rich cultural heritage on Wikimedia Commons.

As a reminder, the contest ends tonight—so if you have any last-minute uploads, now’s the time!

📅 What’s next?

The jury process will begin on 15th April 2025 and is expected to be completed by July 2025. Please keep an eye on your Wikimedia talk page and ensure your email notifications are enabled so you don’t miss any updates about the results.

📝 We want to hear from you!

Your experience matters to us. We’ll be sending out a feedback form by mid-April to collect your thoughts, suggestions, and any challenges you faced during the contest. Your input will help us make the next edition even better!

Once again, thank you for being a part of this global celebration of folklore and traditions.

With appreciation,

Wiki Loves Folklore International Team

🌍 https://wikilovesfolklore.org/

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:46, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ford Strikers Riot.jpg

A higher-resolution version of the image is available at https://web.archive.org/web/20130530051403if_/http://theamericanjesus.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/1942b.jpg, if you'd like to re-restore from that. Cheers. JayCubby (talk) 01:27, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JayCubby: Hi, Thanks for the information. Actually, this is just this version without the footer. Yann (talk) 09:30, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. It's a fivefold larger file, and I notice that the Commons version is far more pixelated at high zoom than Commons's. JayCubby (talk) 12:48, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JayCubby: "fivefold larger"? Commons version is 3,007 × 2,550, while this other versions is 3,007 × 2,387. Yann (talk) 13:53, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Correction, 2.5x larger file size (I seem to have halved a number somehow, and should have clarified size and not pixel count). Perhaps the Commons copy is sharpened. JayCubby (talk) 14:41, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These are all based on the same source. I usually use 98% compression for JPEG (on Gimp) while always keeping and editing from a XCF version, which is a good compromise between quality and file size. I uploaded the PNG version of my restoration: File:Ford Strikers Riot.png. Yann (talk) 15:14, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Stamps

Stamps has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ বাংলা ∙ čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ македонски ∙ Nederlands ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ไทย ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 吴语 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Rathfelder (talk) 13:34, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Bonjour @Yann j’espère que vous allez bien.

J’ai quelques photos que je souhaite ajouter (elles sont sur Flickr). J’ai contacté le photographe directement, et il m’a donné l’autorisation. Quelle est la procédure à suivre ? Dois-je partager l’e-mail, ou comment cela fonctionne-t-il ? Crdlt Riad Salih (talk) 15:59, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Riad Salih: Si elles sont sur Flickr, le plus simple est que l'auteur les mettent sous license libre sur Flickr. Sinon, il faut qu'il envoie une autorisation via COM:VRT. C'est plus compliqué et ça revient au même. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 16:53, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann y a un membre de la VRT qui parle français? Merci Riad Salih (talk) 17:03, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Riad Salih: Oui, bien sûr. Il y a plusieurs volontaires francophones sur VRT. Voir COM:VRT/fr pour la version en français. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 17:13, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism warning

You posted a vandalism warning on my talk page and vandalism includes intent on my part which was not there. "On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose." I did not and have never done any such thing. It was just a stupid mistake because I don't really know what I'm doing on Wikimedia - which does seem obvious from the repeated efforts. I just wanted a license for the US. I have never even knowingly posted a PD-self license since I have never uploaded a single image of any kind. I can't explain what happened because I don't know enough, but I know I did not intend to cause a problem. Please remove that accusation. It's unfair and untrue. Yes, I screwed up. No, it was not intentional. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:40, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jenhawk777: Adding false information or removing right information could be considered vandalism. This is just a warning. Please be careful next time. And please use the Sandbox for testing. Thanks, Yann (talk) 19:56, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Only if I actually knew what I was doing and intended that! It seems like the fact that I did it three times is pretty good evidence that I did not have a clue what I was doing. That isn't vandalism, it's just stupidity. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:19, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK if you say it. Yann (talk) 09:37, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

McClintock copyvio

File:McLintock! (1963) by Andrew V. McLaglen.webm is a copyvio, because the music in the film is still copyrighted. See my comment there (and some information from the Copyright Office mentioning the renewals). D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 23:07, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@D. Benjamin Miller: OK. So undelete in 2059? Yann (talk) 09:39, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 13:48, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, added to Category:Undelete in 2059. Yann (talk) 15:25, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deux utilisateurs qui se ressemblent

Bonjour Yann, je trouve les contributions de ces 2 nouveaux utilisateurs curieuses : RitaNamono et Nenyee. Comptes créés les 24 et 26 mars. Ajout de catégories inutiles sur mes images. Genre 1 et 2. Modification de code informatique cat-a-lot dans leurs espaces personnels. Mais je ne comprends pas le but. Qu'est-ce que tu en penses ? -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:42, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Basile Morin: Bonjour Basile, Clairement des faux-nez d'un autre compte. Il y a plus d'évidences que nécessaire pour une vérification. Yann (talk) 17:41, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, merci Yann pour la confirmation. J'ai ouvert une requête. -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:32, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Robert Califf's Swearing In Ceremony (25116260830).jpg vs File:Robert Califf's Swearing In Ceremony on February 25, 2016.jpg

Dear Admin Yann,

As an Admin on Commons, do you have any idea what to do with the second image? In the first image, the uploader order a flickrreview on time whereas in the second image, the uploader did not order a flickrreview...and it is today stuck in the "flickr not found category" since the flickr link was deleted and Internet archive did not archive the weblink. What would you do with the second image? Would you pass the second image based on the first image, do nothing or remove the flickr not found tag here? Both images were clearly taken on the same day with the same camera. Any opinion? Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:43, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Leoboudv: I removed the license review request, and added a link to the Flickr account. I think that license review is not really needed here, as there is no doubt about the author and the copyright status. Yann (talk) 11:22, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You Yann for your wisdom and your help. When I came to Commons, I studied Commons procedure and always ordered a flickrreview at upload for flickr images. I never had any problems. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 11:26, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Golden Clown (1926) by A. W. Sandberg.webm

File:The Golden Clown (1926) by A. W. Sandberg.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.

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

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

hinnk (talk) 03:58, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gatto bianco

You can also block it undefinitely, he's banned on it.wiki for trolling, abuse of multiple users and "doppelgangerism" (the username is a pun on my nickname, which in Italian reads "Gatto nero". "Gatto bianco" is "White cat"). -- Blackcat 16:13, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done Yann (talk) 16:15, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Better movie encodes (and difficulty uploading large files?)

Hi Yann,

Just figured that I would mention that I am working on creating better encodes of movies for Commons. I'm using AV1 (and tweaking the parameters as appropriate). This can produce much better results than VP9 or especially VP8. I am currently doing two-pass encoding using svt-av1; this produces files that are a bit under 5 GB (on purpose, using the highest quality I can within our file size limits). Unfortunately, there are constant timeout errors when trying to publish these large files from the stash. I don't know if you are experiencing this; in the meantime, I'm uploading my encodes to Archive.org, and maybe you will have better luck trying to upload them (I don't know, but you can see the two I've linked in that Phabricator request).

BTW, I noticed that you have uploaded a bunch of public-domain films to Archive.org — but your source files are usually already fairly lossily compressed copies, and not necessarily in the best quality. Since we can't use H264 anyway (and AV1 is better), it's best to not work from a small H264 file, and instead work from the best quality file available (usually, a large H264, as you'd find on a Blu-ray) and encode directly from that to AV1 without a lossy H264 in between. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 10:46, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@D. Benjamin Miller: Hi, Thanks for your message. The films I upload are usually from DVD or Blu-ray. If the quality is poor, it is probably because the film is old and/or the digitization was not well done. I use V2C as encoding takes anything from 8 to 12 hours, and I can't do it locally. The source files are available on https://archive.org/details/@yannf if you want to try. BTW I just learnt that server-side uploads are deprecated, and a number of films I submitted to V2C are lost. :( Please see phab:T378451 for the list. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:08, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will do what I can to help!

One thing I'll note about V2C is that it both doesn't recognize AV1 as a valid free codec (insisting on converting it to VP9), and that it doesn't support setting AV1 as the output codec (which, although not as good as my manually adjusted encodes, would be better — using libsvtav1 in ffmpeg — than using libvpx-vp9, both for quality/file size and, in my experience, encode speed).

I don't believe server-side uploads are actually non-operational, officially; bvbibber says in my linked thread "we may be deprecating the server-side upload queue." It's definitely problematic, though, since SSUs don't get done quickly (if ever). I'd be very happy to upload files myself instead — in fact, I can, but, unfortunately, publishing large files (in this case, 4.86 GB) from the stash constantly fails due to timeouts while publishing, which hopefully can be resolved soon.

D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 11:21, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@D. Benjamin Miller: I also agree that AV1 should be used. I just filled up a bug report, as I have discovered that nobody actually did: [3]. Please feel free to add anything relevant. Thanks, Yann (talk) 11:38, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@D. Benjamin Miller: L'Argent (1928) by Marcel L'Herbier, a French silent film. The source file is 2.5 GB, and it should be uploaded to English Wikipedia (not PD in France yet). Yann (talk) 11:59, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See, here's the thing. The actual Blu-ray of this is ~40 GB. The YTS-MX files you are uploading are already highly compressed. So let me go get a copy of the actual best source before I spend my time encoding. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 12:40, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1912) by Lucius J. Henderson.webm

Just a note on File:Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1912) by Lucius J. Henderson.webm --- this file includes a substantial new introduction and other written materials which were added recently and thus aren't in the public domain. I'll be making a new encode of the film (without those added materials) and uploading that soon, but just watch out for this sort of thing with old movies. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 10:50, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@D. Benjamin Miller: OK thanks. You can upload over this one, there is no need to delete. Yann (talk) 10:59, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, we'll just have to revdel then. I will have my encode prepared very soon, hopefully! D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 11:01, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done @Yann; you can now revdel the old version. When I have time, however, I'll try to go to the library and pick up the actual Blu-ray, which will give me a better source from which to redo this same encode. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 13:42, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Adams Synchronological Chart, 1881.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Adams Synchronological Chart, 1881.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 13:02, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Stele of Keinefer|The British Museum EA1324.

[2] [1]

[1]

[2]