Bourgeois.A
Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki. More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump. |
|
-- 09:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
editYour image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! M (266)Chevalement du puits Simon II..jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Salut,
ton image d'une araignée parait bien interessant mais les collègues aiment toujours avoir une identification de l'espèce (en latin)... que je ne suis pas capable de donner. Pourrais tu? -- Aisano (talk) 21:49, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- Salut, ce n'est pas un caprice des collègues, mais une règle. Tes photos sont visuellement très jolies, mais n'ont aucune chance de passer en QI si elles ne sont pas décrites correctement ni, a fortiori, catégorisées, comme c'est le cas de trois sur quatre.... Pour obtenir de vrais succès, je te conseille vivement la lecture des règles, c'est utile et te permettra de progresser.
- bien cordialement, --Jebulon (talk) 21:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- Merci, je comprend, mais je ne m'y connais pas trop en insecte et araignée... Je vais essayer de chercher.Cordialement,Bourgeois.A (talk) 22:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
C'est mieux là ?Bourgeois.A (talk) 22:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
+http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PR1-06-2012.jpg +http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PR2-06-2012.jpg
- C'est sûr que c'est mieux (si c'est juste !!). Un petit effort sur tes noms de fichier (ils doivent avoir un sens, PR1-06-2012 n'en a pas, encore une règle...) et ça sera parfait !
- Je me suis autorisé quelques corrections orthographiques sur ta page de wikipédia, pardon pour l'indiscrétion...--Jebulon (talk) 23:07, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- Merci des conseils et de la correction, j'ai fait les dernières modifs nécessaires. Bonne continuation ! Bourgeois.A (talk) 05:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
editYour image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Marguerite Leucanthemum vulgare-06-2012.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Images remarquables
editBonjour,
Vous devriez lire Commons:Guide des images et Commons:Featured picture candidates avant de proposer des images. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 18:15, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- J'essaie juste d'aider. En fait, la qualité des images n'est pas si mauvaise. Avec un peu de soin dans la présentation et de persévérance, ça devrait le faire :
- Mettez un nom qui veut dire quelque chose : File:M (237).jpg
- Ajoutez la géolocalisation [1].
- Faites une description complète de l'image. N'oubliez pas la description quand vous nominez une image.
- Cordialement, Yann (talk) 07:30, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
editYour image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Puits-Arthur-06-2012 152.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
SET en VI
editTu as deux options : soit l'historique du site, soit l’état du site aujourd'hui. Voire, si tu peux le faire, faire les photos avant/après ce qui serait le plus juste. Ne te presse pas choisi 4 images qui te semblent le mieux à même de décrire ton sujet et on fera un scope en fonction de ton choix. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:15, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
- Je préfère parler de l'état su site aujourd'hui. Voilà quelques photos possibles :
-
Vue depuis le village avec le clocher.
-
La cheminée.
-
Le sous-sol d'une des salle de machine d'extraction.
-
Les ruines.
-
Le seul bâtiment encore équipé d'un toit (le mieux préserver).
Ton avis ? Elle ont toutes été prisent par moi, le même jour. PS : Merci de m'aider !
- Le choix est recevable, à condition que toutes les images aient un géocodage (ce n'est pas encore le cas)
- le scope pourrait être : Puits Arthur de Buyer Magny-Danigon, France.
- (Dans les légendes de tes photos "Magny-Danigon" devrait apparaître tu peux même faire un lien Magny-Danigon)
- Donne un titre à ton SET et du lance la procédure.
- Je ne te garanti pas le succès, Thomas Bresson à fait également de bonnes images du site. Mais il faut se lancer ce sera toujours pour toi une expérience nouvelle. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
editYour image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Memorial of the disaster of 16 December 1950.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
VI
editBien. Les images se placent en fin de liste dans VI, j'y ai remédie. Il faut que dans le scope il y ai une categorie; tant pour le monument aux morts que pour le SET. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- OK pour le SET j'ai pris la liberté de modifier le scope en le rattachant a la catégorie, inspire t'en pour ton monument aux morts... --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
editYour image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Unidentified Apoidea on Centaurea jacea 06-2012.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Valued Image Promotion
editCongratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Memorial of the disaster of 16 December 1950 in the gallery of Fourchie Collieries Ronchamp in Haute-Saône (eastern France)..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Quality Image Promotion
editYour image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Inscription-puits de l'Etançon.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Quality Image Promotion
editYour image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Puits-Arthur-06-2012 010.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Image "Cité minière des Epoisses"
editBonjour,
Je me suis permis d'apporter quelques petits changements à votre belle photo de la cité minière des Epoisses. J'ai enlevé la vague tache dans le ciel en haut vers la gauche, et surtout j'ai redressé le léger effet de perspective qui faisait "pencher" les lignes verticales. J'ai utilisé pour cela le programme Photoshop Elements. Je n'ai pas enregistré ces modifications par dessus votre fichier originel, qui est donc resté inchangé, mais j'ai simplement chargé un nouveau fichier en ajoutant le mot "edit" au nom. Libre à vous de proposer éventuellement le nouveau fichier comme candidat QI. Malheureusement, je ne pourrai pas voter "pour": étant moi-même maintenant un peu partie concernée, ce ne serait pas sportif. Cordialement, MJJR (talk) 15:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC).
- Merci pour votre intervention, je vais re-proposé l'image ce soire je pense. Bonne continuation, Bourgeois.A (talk) 16:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Valued Image Set Promotion
editCongratulations!
The set of images you
nominated
for valued image set was reviewed and has now been promoted to the Valued image set: Arthur de Buyer coal mine ruins.
Arthur de Buyer coal mine ruins.
If you would like to nominate another image set, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Photo houillères de Ronchamp
editJ'ai regardé votre photo des houillères de Ronchamp et tout me semble en ordre: la tache de lumière dans le bas a disparu. Mais le problème que vous mentionnez ne m'est pas inconnu. J'ai éprouvé exactement la même chose il y a quelque temps. Apparemment, lorsqu'on apporte un changement à une image que se trouve déjà un certain temps sur Commons (quelques mois ou quelques années), le changement ne s'affiche pas immédiatement. Ce qui donne l'impression (erronée) que le changement n'a pas été enregistré. Alors on essaye de nouveau et encore, comme vous l'avez fait. Je me demande si de tels changements ne doivent pas être avalisés par un administrateur de Commons avant d'être visibles. De toute façon, en de tels cas il suffit de patienter quelques heures ou quelques jours, et généralement tout s'arrange. Cordialemant -- MJJR (talk) 20:43, 21 November 2012 (UTC).
- Merci pour l'info. Cordialement. Bourgeois.A (talk) 20:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Autopatrol given
editHello. I just wanted to let you know that I have granted autopatrol rights to your account; the reason for this is that I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy and experienced to have your contributions automatically marked as "reviewed". This has no effect on your editing, it is simply intended to make it easier for users that are monitoring Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones like yours. In addition, the Flickr upload feature and an increased number of batch-uploads in UploadWizard, uploading of freely licensed MP3 files, overwriting files uploaded by others and an increased limit for page renames per minute are now available to you. Thank you. INeverCry 22:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- D'accord. Merci. Bourgeois.A (talk) 22:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
editYour image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Sony NEX-5N with 18-55.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Sony NEX-5N and E-mount lens camera.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Quality Image Promotion
editYour image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Sony NEX-5N with pencake 16.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Tes nominations en "Image de Valeur"
edit- Salut Bourgeois.A
- Je viens de voir tes nominations en "candidats aux images de valeur".
- Je voudrais te faire deux observations, l'une sur la forme, l'autre sur le fond.
- Sur la forme: contrairement à la page FPC, les nominations s'ajoutent à la fin de la liste, et ne se placent pas au dessus... C'est différent, ne me demande pas pourquoi, mais c'est comme ça. Donc il faudrait que tu les retires de là où tu les as mises.
- Sur le fond: tu as choisi à chaque fois le même nom de domaine (le "scope"). Or, par définition puisque c'est le but de cette page, il ne peut y avoir qu'une seule image d'un même domaine qui puisse être distinguée. Donc ça n'est pas possible, comment veux-tu que nous choisissions quel photo de cet appareil "a la plus grande valeur dans "Commons" ?
- Tu as alors deux possibilités. La première, c'est de "réduire" le domaine (scope) de chaque image, en ajoutant par exemple pour chacune la nature de l'objectif monté sur l'appareil. Je ne suis pas sûr que ce soit accepté: on ne peut pas "distinguer" comme VI chaque appareil photo du marché, chacun avec chaque objectif du marché, on n'en finirait plus ! Le "scope" doit être, selon la règle, ni trop large, ni trop étroit.
- L'autre possibilité, c'est de proposer un "set", c'est à dire de mettre ensemble tes images, et de proposer la série complète d'un seul coup (va voir en bas de page, tu auras des exemples). Là, à mon avis, c'est parfait. Comme tes photos sont très bonnes, il n'y aura aucune discussion et ton "set" sera aisément promu (s'il est complet). En plus, c'est plus difficile, et donc plus prestigieux, d'être récompensé pour un "set". Pour exemple, je dois tourner autour de 160 VI, mais je n'ai que neuf sets promus...
- J'espère que je suis clair dans mes explications. Si tu as besoin d'aide, n'hésite pas à me demander.
- Enfin, j'ai très envie de m'acheter cet appareil depuis un moment déjà, comme complément de mon "Reflex" SONY α 550. Si tu en es le propriétaire, que peux-tu m'en dire ?
- Merci et à bientôt,--Jebulon (talk) 18:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- PS: s'agissant de photos dites "de studio" (il faut le préciser dans la description), pas besoin de géocode.--Jebulon (talk) 18:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- re salut.
- De bonnes âmes compétentes se chargent désormais de faire fonctionner les "sets" de façon manuelle, et donc ça marche de nouveau.
- Merci pour tes conseils, j'hésite avec le RX100...--Jebulon (talk) 21:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Bon ben encore merci! Tu as mis le doigt sur mes hésitations. Maintenant, je suis tellement habitué à l'écran mobile que j'aurais de la peine à m'en passer. Je ne joue jamais en automatique, donc les menus ne me font pas peur...--Jebulon (talk) 22:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
editYour image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Puits Arthur 19-02-2013 (3).JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Quality Image Promotion
editYour image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Puits Arthur 19-02-2013 (2).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
VIS Promotion
editCongratulations!
The set of images you
nominated
for valued image set was reviewed and has now been promoted to the Valued image set: Sony NEX-5N.
Sony NEX-5N.
If you would like to nominate another image set, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Quality Image Promotion
editYour image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Charbonnage du Hasard 58.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Puits Notre-Dame pluie.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Quality Image Promotion
editYour image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 2013-Château de Belfort 15.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 2013-Château de Belfort 17.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 2013-Château de Belfort 11.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 2013-Fort de la Miotte 06.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Vue sur Cheratte.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Charbonnage du Hasard 46.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Quality Image Promotion
editYour image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Galerie 780 - 2013 05.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Quality Image Promotion
editYour image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 2013-Château de Belfort 18.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 2013-Château de Belfort 14 - crop.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Quality Image Promotion
editYour image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Fonçage Robert-2013 07.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Hameau de La Houillère 14.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Quality Image Promotion
editYour image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Hameau de La Houillère 13.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Quality Image Promotion
editYour image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Fonçage Robert-2013 09.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 2013-Château de Belfort 03.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 2013-Fort de la Miotte 02.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Quality Image Promotion
editYour image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 2013-Fort de la Miotte 07.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Quality Image Promotion
editYour image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 2013-Fort de la Miotte 08.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Quality Image Promotion
editYour image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Sony 18-55 E.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Quality Image Promotion
editYour image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Tamron 18-200 E.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Quality Image Promotion
editYour image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 2014 - Puits Arthur - 30.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Quality Image Promotion
editYour image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 2013-Fort de la Miotte 13 - Crop.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Quality Image Promotion
editYour image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 2014 - Puits Arthur - 30 - Crop.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Demandes de suppression
editBonjour, S'il-vous-plaît, n'oubliez pas de laisser une note sur la page de l'utilisateur concerné lorsque vous faites des demandes de suppression, en suivant les instructions affichées dans le modèle. Par ailleurs, êtes-vous certain que l'utilisateur Jamy0254C n'est pas Jean-Michel Castro? Si oui, il serait quand même utile de fournir, avec le modèle de demande de suppression, un lien ou un minimum d'explications pour étayer l'accusation que l'utilisateur aurait menti sur son identité. Si non, ce pourrait être sympa de lui laisser un délai pour réagir avant de supprimer. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Nouveau modèle utilisateur
editSalut.
J'ai créé un nouveau modèle utilisateur : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:User_info2
Je l'ai utilisé sur ma page utilisateur.
Cordialement. --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- @ComputerHotline: merci ! Bourgeois.A (talk) 21:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Happy holidays! 2015!
edit* * * Happy Holidays 2015 ! * * * | ||
* Merry Christmas! Happy New Year! * Joyeux Noël ! Bonne année! * Frohes Weihnachten! Frohes Neues Jahr! * Счастливого Рождества! С Новым годом! --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:07, 25 December 2014 (UTC) |
File:Centrale Ronchamp XXe 06.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. |