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)

Vogue Taiwan deletions

I see you deleted all the images from the Vogue Taiwan YouTube channel (including many I uploaded)

Where is the discussion resolving this? I only saw Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2025/02#h-Vogue_Taiwan_and_possible_copyright_washing-20250205171900 which did not reach a conclusion that I can see.
That discussion was mainly about non-Vogue Conde Nast images released by Vogue Taiwan. Are you intentionally deleting the Vogue images as well, or was that a mistake? --GRuban (talk) 22:28, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? GRuban (talk) 15:18, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GRuban: Hi, The argument on VPC is that Vogue Taiwan is not the copyright holder of these images, so the license on YouTube was never valid. Are you contesting that? Yann (talk) 16:48, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. As I, and others, did at the VPC. --GRuban (talk) 17:28, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GRuban: OK. And what about the opinion of WMF Legal? I mean I would restore the files if there is consensus about that. Yann (talk) 17:36, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did WMF Legal give an opinion? I didn't see it. All I saw was some people arguing, arguments made on both sides, the discussion closed without reaching a conclusion (except possibly for asking for more information, from both Vogue Taiwan/Conde Nast and WMF Legal, no one objected to that). Am I missing something? Did any of Vogue Taiwan or Conde Nast or WMF Legal say something that you saw and I didn't? --GRuban (talk) 17:53, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. WMF Legal says that they got an answer from Conde Nast, and Conde Nast says that the license is not valid. That's the whole point of my deletions. Yann (talk) 17:59, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. OK, then. Can you point to where WMF Legal said that? --GRuban (talk) 18:07, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The current discussion is at COM:VP#March 2025 update from WMF Legal on "Vogue Taiwan and possible Copyright Washing" discussion. I gave a link when deleting the files. Conde Nast says “All copyrights are owned by the Condé Nast global network. The CC license was applied due to an unknown error. We have immediately fixed it and updated all videos and settings on the Vogue YouTube channel back to the "Standard YouTube License.” Yann (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, sorry I missed it. --GRuban (talk) 18:47, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GRuban: FYI I made a list of files, just in case: Commons:Deletion requests/File:陸弈靜.png. Yann (talk) 18:58, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Not a high chance it will be needed, unfortunately, but it won't hurt to make the list. I followed up on the COM:VP discussion, where I see you're taking some heat. Sorry for that too; I'm guessing you can understand how people feel on all sides here. The administrator's mop is a heavy weight to carry sometimes. So it goes. --GRuban (talk) 19:05, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube Screenshots

I've seen you've deleted a screenshot photo from Youtube. What are allowed because I've seen some photos here with same license from Youtube? Medforlife (talk) 16:02, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) In order to accept a screenshot from YouTube, the content has to be public domain (like from the US federal government or American film from before 1930) or freely licensed (there would be an indication that the material is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution license). Standard YouTube license is not allowed and fair use is not allowed here. Abzeronow (talk) 18:42, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio

Hi

Some logos seem to be a copyvio, for example Ponta's logo. Panam2014 (talk) 04:31, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done Blocked for a week. Yann (talk) 09:15, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Antietam

Finally finished this. Glad I didn't realise why I stopped working on it until it was done, though. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:05, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam Cuerden: Great work. Condolences for your father. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:14, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Official portrait

Hi

File:Ilie Bolojan official portrait (cropped).jpg seems to be a copyvio. Panam2014 (talk) 17:37, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Panam2014: Hi, Please create a deletion request with your rationale. Thanks, Yann (talk) 17:39, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. What do you think? I think it is my first own deletion request. Panam2014 (talk) 17:46, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Panam2014: OK, but please sign your request: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ilie Bolojan official portrait.jpg. I added the crop. Yann (talk) 17:49, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/03/Category:Screenshot images from VOGUE Taiwan YouTube account

Sorry, I considered creating a regular DR, but there were so many hundreds of files that I feared a regular DR would be declined for that reason. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 01:42, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeff G.: In this case, it would be OK to create such a big DR. I made it afterwards: Commons:Deletion requests/File:陸弈靜.png. Yann (talk) 19:23, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

block of Ademola01

Hi, would it be possible to unblock the user:Ademola01? Ademola01 was debugging the phab:T387979. I know that the reason for block was moving files and subcategories kind of in a way which didn't followed the Commons policies, but in this case I should have had better guidance on what files/categories are allowed to move and also try to use beta commons instead of real commons. (note. I am not sure that phab:T387979 would have been easy to replicate on artificial enviroment though so editing real files could have been needed for replicating the bug) In any case i will improve the guidance on what can/should edited --Zache (talk) 19:10, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ademola01 and Zache: OK, unblocked. The edits seem to be useless. Sorry for the inconvenience. Yann (talk) 19:18, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much and no problem. I will improve our guidance. --Zache (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Questionable YouTube videos list

You are invited to contribute to the list of COM:Questionable YouTube videos. Aside from yours truly, no one has edited this list in more than six years. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 03:00, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File removal

Hi there! I noticed that the file Breno Mendes.jpg was once again removed from Commons for being classified as a personal photo. The image was uploaded for further use in the graphic materials of "Projeto Mais Teoria da História na Wiki," a History project focused on expanding discussions on underrepresented topics within Wikimedia projects. Breno will be the executive coordinator for one of our upcoming events, “Mais Negres em Teoria da História na Wiki”, and we require his photo to be used in event promotion and other related materials, all of which will be uploaded to Commons with proper attribution for derivative works. As explained to the user who had previously and briefly excluded the file, Breno was the one who took his own photo and uploaded it here. I was about to categorize it when I noticed it was once again missing. Could you kindly restore it to Commons? Best regards, Ana Vitória Farion (Projeto Mais+) (talk) 20:21, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

re

Hi there, please check User talk:Mafalda4144. Thanks in advance. Aqurs1 (talk) 23:38, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done Unblocked. @Aqurs1: Thanks for helping in this case. Yann (talk) 09:14, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:אברהם מרדכי חריזמן.jpg

Dear Yann, The media file (picture) in question is a copy which I took of a picture took in 1910, so presumably in the public domain. Can you help me straighten out the details for compliance with Wikimedia policies? Yours אמיר בן-עמרם (talk) 10:51, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@אמיר בן-עמרם: I suppose this is from Israel, so please see Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Israel. Thanks, Yann (talk) 10:55, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to this page, I should use the tag {{PD-Israel}}. But where do I put the tag? Sorry for bothering you, I am inexperienced in this matter. אמיר בן-עמרם (talk) 10:09, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@אמיר בן-עמרם: Hi, I did for you this time: [1], including a template for US copyright. Please add categories. Yann (talk) 10:48, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! אמיר בן-עמרם (talk) 13:29, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:مفتاح الحياه متحرك.gif

The Ankh is an ancient Pharaonic symbol available in the public domain and is not intellectual property like someone who draws a cross.Redaking (talk) 15:49, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Redaking: No. This is a complex animated GIF with a copyright. Yann (talk) 16:53, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image conservée

Bonjour @Yann,

Je suppose qu’il faut indiquer que ce fichier a été conservé à la suite de ce débat. Je ne connais pas bien les usages de Commons, donc je ne le fais pas moi-même au cas où l’action serait réservée aux administrateurs. Cordialement, Huñvreüs (talk) 14:28, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Huñvreüs: Ah oui, j'avais oublié celui-là. C'est fait. Yann (talk) 15:27, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

👍 Huñvreüs (talk) 20:31, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion that may change your mind about deleting a file

Hello, please review this discussion, which has not yet been closed. By reviewing the content of the discussion, I may request that you restore the file. This is because you deleted it based on misleading and incorrect information. Thank you, and I look forward to your response after reviewing the entire discussion. Masry1973 | مصري1973 (talk) 01:14, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Masry1973: Since there is a free license at the source, I restored the file. A proper DR is needed here. Yann (talk) 10:04, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

Hi Yann, I just wanted to apologise for confusing your account with the admin who deleted the file. I was trying to address them, but have confused them with your name in the process. Please do accept my apology and thank you for the proactive measures you have taken to ensure the collabratory spirit is not ruined in the project. Épine (talk) 19:47, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:This is not a love song, œuvre de Didier Faustino. Cimetière des Rois, Genève.jpg

File:This is not a love song, œuvre de Didier Faustino. Cimetière des Rois, Genève.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!

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） ∙ +/−

A1Cafel (talk) 06:51, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]