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)

COM:OWR - File:X icon.svg

Hi Yann! Your input would be extra helpful in this overwiting request. Thank you! It's moon (talk) 22:02, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yann, the cascade protection from ptwiki is still an issue. I don't know how to unprotect it. Abzeronow (talk) 00:04, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Abzeronow: I don't think you can. It should be asked on ptwiki if it is still needed. Yann (talk) 09:49, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to replace the icon for better accuracy, it's not a request coming from ptwiki. Ptwiki aren't the only ones using the icon. It's moon (talk) 15:23, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I uploaded it separately would you be able to make the replacement for me? It's moon (talk) 17:41, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Provincia de Buenos Aires. División política, 1957.tif

Hi @Yann! The map is from 1957. Since there is no other attribution of authorship than the state agency, in Argentina it is in the Public Domain because more than 50 years have passed since its publication. I mistakenly indicated that I didn't have the information, but I didn't know if I could remove the template {{Remove this line and insert a license instead|year=2025|month=02|day=28}} or not.. Thanks Ucriesidelplata (talk) 12:40, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Album Reutlinger de portraits divers

Hi Yann, are you sure that these images belong to Category:Jean Reutlinger? I think that at least a part of them (or perhaps all of them) are made by his father, Category:Léopold-Émile Reutlinger. Unfortunately the link to the source is broken. Do you know if a mass correction is possible? All pages have a artist = {{Creator:Jean Reutlinger}} statement.Fransvannes (talk) 12:49, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fransvannes: Hi, Ah yes, this is an old issue. I think that they worked together for some time, so it is difficult to know exactly who is the author. Yann (talk) 12:54, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then I have to look them up one by one in the Gallica like this. Quite some work. Thank for your reply anyway! Fransvannes (talk) 13:18, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Licensing question

Hi Yann. Would mind taking a look at File:Jenkins-Johnston and President Koroma.jpg and File:JBJJ.jpg? Both were uploaded by the same user afew days apart and both are being claimed as "own work", Neither file has any EXIF data or source information that might possibly allow the "own work" claim to be verified, and the uploader has to real track record of uploading files other than these two and one other file. The first image could be a personal photo that the uploader took themselves, but the second image has a professional feel and seems less likely to be the uploader's own work. Do you think these are OK as licensed or should they be verified by VRT? The uploader hasn't edited on either Commons or English Wikipedia since uploading these files in 2016; so, it seems unlikely they're going to respond to any requests posted on their user talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:36, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: Yes, it is unlikely that they are own works. A deletion request may be in order. Yann (talk) 13:40, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look at these. I've started a DR about them, plus one more that was a crop of one of the two. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:38, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Heil's photo

Hello. Thank you for noticing that photo - it has just reached the status of Featured following your nomination. Thanks again! Wojciech Pędzich Talk 21:49, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Flickr files

Hey, Yann, I saw that you deleted File:Imelda Padilla, 2023 (cropped).jpg. It was first deleted by Ratekreel, but later undeleted because I put the {{PD-CAGov}} template as it was made for the office of the Mayor of Los Angeles (see Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2023/12#Los_Angeles_government_Flickr_accounts), but it still had the failed license review because it had the copyright on the page. I wanted to put {{Flickr-unfree-but}}, but I wasn't sure if I was able to as I'm not a license reviewer and I would be prohibited to if I was. File:Mayor Bass meeting with LAUSD Superintendent Alberto M. Carvalho, 2023.jpg, File:Mayor Bass with Representative Cárdenas announcing funds for new bus shelters, 2023.jpg, and File:Alberto M. Carvalho, 2023 (cropped).jpg are also nommed. reppop^talk 22:17, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Licensing question

Hey, Yann, I saw that you deleted some pictures that I uploaded on wikimedia, pointing on c:COM:NETCOPYVIO. But all of this pictures were screenshots from videos originally uploaded on YouTube under, a CC license (Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported). Their website states: "YouTube allows users to mark their videos with a Creative Commons CC BY license. You are free: to share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work. to remix – to adapt the work"

Can you explain your actions please, and provide the specific rule that was violated??? Aqob (talk) 11:13, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aqob: Please see [1]. No, these are not under a free license on YouTube. Yann (talk) 11:17, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IP bloquée

Bonjour Yann,

Par rapport à ma question sur la page des administrateurs, l'utilisatrice ne peut même pas créer un compte. J'ai eu son adresse IP via message privée et elle ne sait même pas comment demander l'exemption de blocage d'IP. Merci — D Y O L F 77^[Talk] 11:31, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dyolf77: Special:Contributions/156.204.0.0/16 a été bloqué 11 fois suite à une vérification de faux-nez. Je ne veux donc pas la débloquer moi-même. Demande à User:Krd. Yann (talk) 11:41, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

C'est pour cette raison que j'ai demandé une assistance. Et j'ai bien fait de la demander !

Merci beaucoup. Je vais demander à la personne de se connecter d'une autre IP et participer à la compétition. — D Y O L F 77^[Talk] 11:46, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lucyspears

Hello, I have discovered that this account is a sockpuppet of Lucyspears. I would appreciate your review of this matter. P. ĐĂNG (talk) 03:41, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can review the account log of this account (another sockpuppet of Lucyspears). It can be observed that the accounts Minhquoc12390 and Danhhung2323 have a similar file-naming pattern. P. ĐĂNG (talk) 03:53, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done Blocked, files deleted. Yann (talk) 10:45, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mass false deletion requests.

Hello, Yann! I'm making this message in concerns about user Grandmaster Huon. This user has repeatedly kept doing the same disruptive behavior over and over again even when asked to stop. I've already made a discussion at AN/U with more detail: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Concerns about Grandmaster Huon. Thank you. TzarN64 (talk) 15:20, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I missed your comment about the Taliban and protection of IP rights

I missed your reply at Commons:Village pump/Archive/2025/01#Now that the Taliban is back in power should Afghanistan still be considered part of Berne-World?

Yes, Mennonites are some of the loveliest people on Planet Earth. I think old order Mennonites rejection of modern technology is worthy of respect. I think the same kind of respect that should be accorded to conservative Afghans who reject modern technology. No one is saying we should like violent Talibans. But violent Talibans are not the only Afghans who don't value modern technology, progress, etc.

You asked "Should we start hosting content from these places because the culture and the judiciary system do not work as in the Western world?" Did you mean to write "stop hosting"? In my original comment I listed three factors that enlist a country in Berne-world: (1) pass a law stating they signed on to an international agreement; (2) pass a law giving foreigner's IP rights in their country the international agreements they signed entitled them to; (3) actually enforce the IP rights they just passed.

IMO, passing the two laws, alone, is insufficient. IMO, if a country, like Afghanistan under the Taliban, shows a complete disrespect for IP rights, and will never protect an IP right, even once,

I don't think we should stop hosting images from that country. I think we should return to the position where we regard images from those country as in the public domain.

Now, if the IP rights laws a legislature passed are intermittently enforced, due to incompetence, or corruption, that is a completely different matter. Some nations will never enforce international IP rights because the current governments are fundamentally opposed to what we broadly refer to as "progress".

The Taliban do not believe in progress. I believe they will NEVER honor foreigner's IP rights, because doing so would require respecting progress. Honoring the IP rights to films and musical recordings? They OUTLAWED films and musical recordings. Geo Swan (talk) 17:01, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I do not understand what you want with this. Do you propose that we consider all photos as public domain if they are take in a country that is not democratic? GPSLeo (talk) 17:23, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Close. I asked whether countries that fundamentally disrespect the IP rights of their own citizens, and the IP rights of foreigners, should have their IP rights of photos and other IP content treated as public domain.

Do you know the history of the Soviet Union's respect for IP rights? Do you know the authors Robert Heinlein and Farley Mowat? Within living memory the Soviet Union was not a signatory to International IP rights agreements. So they never bothered to negotiate a royalty agreement when they published foreigners works in the Soviet Union.

In order not to appear as total bad boys they would open an account to deposit royalties for those works. But they picked pitifully low royalty rates, and the funds were deposited in Rubles, and those Rubles had to be spent in the USSR. Both Heinlein and Mowat had the same reaction. They would go to the USSR, withdraw their Rubles, spend them traveling around the USSR, try to talk to as many ordinary citizens as possible, and then write a travelogue, saying the USSR was a terrible country.

I don't know when the USSR joined Berne-world. Mowat mentioned his travelogue, "My discovery of Siberia", in his very funny 1985 book "My discovery of America", which he published after he was barred from entering the USA... so, like I said, living memory.

When the Soviet Union didn't respect foreigner's IP rights, there was no obligation to respect Soviet IP rights. And so, I think, if Afghanistan is not going to respect IP rights, there is no obligation to respect the IP rights of pictures taken in Afghanstan. If I am not mistaken, Afghans aren't getting protection of their IP rights, in Afghanistan. Geo Swan (talk) 17:51, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I mostly agree with you about the social assessment of the Taliban or the Soviet Union. But this assessment and how we deal with IP rights on Commons are two different things. There is also an issue with your #3 item above. There are quite many countries where IP rights are very loosely enforced. Not to mention places where IP rights are the least concern of people living there. Survival against oppression and poverty are the main concerns there. This reminds me of a recent critic because we awarded a featured status to the picture of Che Guevara, and displayed it on the Main Page. So all this is very subjective, so how do we translate this to Commons? Yann (talk) 19:52, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary on Category:1561 books PDF files

Hi, Yann. I was about to delete this category for being empty (along with some other empty cats in Category:Books in PDF by year) when I noticed you had undeleted it in 2023 with the comment "do not delete". Is there a reason this category and/or its empty siblings should be kept? Thanks. -- Auntof6 (talk) 04:14, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6: Hi, I do not remember why I wrote that. May be it wasn't empty, but there are potentially many books from that year, so deleting the category will only prevent using it. Yann (talk) 10:21, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Help in sorting out licences

Bonjour, Yann.

I need help with sorting out licenses, if you have the time. I had some of my contributions flagged for deletion regarding licenses: at first the lack of them, and now the licenses being the wrong ones or more than one license.

There is a complaint about a Suzy Carrier postcard from 1948-50, which is now public domain in France, but a grievance about a US license also being added. I also would like a clarification on the License Ouverte 2.0.

Best regards. Filipe46 (talk) 14:00, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Filipe46: Ah oui, j'ai vu que File:Suzy Carrier postcard Paris nº 4 Pathé.jpg avait été demandé à la suppression. Le problème est que le statut des droits aux Etats-Unis est incertain. Il faudrait prouver que l'image a été publiée aux Etats-Unis au même moment qu'en France.

Et à propos de File:Sergent-chef Tran Dinh Vy avec ses médailles.jpg, je n'ai aucune idée si la licence est correcte. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 16:59, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann: Merci d'avoir répondu.

Ma question sur l'affaire Suzy Carrier, étant donné que l'image est déjà PD en France, alors il n'y a pas besoin d'une licence américaine, n'est-ce pas ?

Concernant l'image du sergent-chef Tran Dinh Vy, l'ECPAD fait partie du programme des Archives Nationales (FranceArchives), impliquant la Licence Ouverte: https://www.ecpad.fr/actualites/lecpad-rejoint-le-portail-national-des-archives/

Cordialement.

Filipe46 (talk) 17:20, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Filipe46: Et si. Tous les documents sur Commons doivent être dans le domaine public aux Etats-Unis et dans le pays d'origine. Il est peut-être possible de copier le fichier sur Wikipédia en français. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 18:02, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion request

Hi Yann, I saw you deleting couple of Vogue Taiwan images following the recent WMF Legal notice regarding the erroneous CC licensing of Vogue Taiwan content, I'm requesting the deletion of the following Vogue Taiwan images (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) that I uploaded back in 2023. Thanks! — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 17:06, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Paper9oll: Please just tag them for deletion. Thanks, Yann (talk) 17:10, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann Understood, tagged all six images. Thanks! — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 17:14, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thank you for being quick to respond to speedy deletions! ;) Grandmaster Huon (talk) 18:08, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio

Hi

The user have uploaded files from a false AUR account, with 2 followers. Panam2014 (talk) 18:17, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Flickr account added to Commons:Questionable Flickr images. Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with 202354425@N02, user warned. Yann (talk) 18:44, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tyla

Hi, I see you have deleted multiple files from the aforementioned category without any prior discussion. Any reason why that was, since the files were fairly licensed under creative commons? Dxneo (talk) 20:30, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dxneo: You probably mean images from Vogue. Please see this information. The license is not valid. Thanks, Yann (talk) 20:39, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]