User talk:Pierre André Leclercq/Archive 5

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec The young Routy.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. Comments okay. --A.Savin 06:56, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Boyarina Morozova de V.Surikov galerie Tretyakov.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. Comments Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 06:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Aleksey Savrasov - Le retour des corbeaux.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. Comments Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 06:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! 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:
Boyaryna Morozova (Surikov), Tretyakov Gallery, Saint Petersburg.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Comment Vasily Surikov - Боярыня Морозова - Google Art Project.jpg seems to be of better quality and widely used. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:18, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Archaeodontosaurus: I've switched up the images and renamed the nomination to match. @PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ: I hope you don't mind my switching the images. My only interest is in getting this great image VI status. lNeverCry 10:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
• @INeverCry: I do not remember such a case in the past. I understood the idea to promote a good image and this idea is good. But the form does not seem good to me. It would have been preferable to leave this appointment as it stood or to withdraw it. Then put in place the new appointment. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

  @Archaeodontosaurus: My apologies. I'm pretty new here, so it looks like I made a mistake doing it like this. With that said, what's done is done. We've got the proper image nominated now. Do you really want to have an admin delete the redirect, restore the old nomination, withdraw that, and then redo this nomination exactly as it already is? That's a lot of work to get to the same basic result we have now. Why don't we treat this as a learning experience for me, and let the nomination go forward as it is? I understand I made an error in judgement, and I won't do this again. lNeverCry 10:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

  •  Support Seems logical to me. Charles (talk) 11:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
    • I agree with the exceptional principle. I wish for everything to be perfectly consensual, to have the opinion of @PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ: because all this done under his signature. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
      • I agree with Archaeodontosaurus. The nominator deserves the courtesy of having his picture considered, not substituted by another image in the same thread. Quite recently, we had a similar case with a view of the facade of the Cathedral in Vezelay. Pierre nominated a picture and I argued that a different one was better in the scope, so Pierre withdrew his nomination, I nominated the other image separately, and it was promoted. It's not that arduous to create a new nomination. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
        • Archaeodontosaurus, lNeverCry Indeed, you are right to propose this image, under my cover, and I thank you.-  Support Best wishes to you for the year 2017.- Best regards.--Pierre André (talk) 18:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Best in scope. @PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ: I appreciate your understanding. I didn't do this the right way, but it's good to see you're not annoyed at me. Happy 2017 to you too mon ami! lNeverCry 20:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:56, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! 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:
Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky grave Tikhvin Cemetery at Saint-Petersburg.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support - Best in scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! 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:
Town Hall of Augsbourg "Civitates Conduntur".-Allegory of architecture..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Comment It is necessary to reduce the scope to the detail that is presented --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:19, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment I reduce the scope to the detail : "Ceiling of the Goldener Saal". --Pierre André (talk) 15:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
• It is equally vague. The theme of the central medallion of the image would suffice to characterize the detail. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:00, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment Civitates Conduntur is an "Allegorie of Architektur" (cities were founded). In fact, this painting refers to the architect Elias Holl, holding a model of the town hall and the compass.--Pierre André (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Perfect now --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:22, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! 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:
Fuggerei, House of Franz Mozart Augsbourg.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment It is necessary to reduce the scope to the detail that is presented --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:18, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Done I add "House of Franz Mozart",.-Great-grandfather of Wolfgang Amadeus was a mason in Fuggerei.--Pierre André (talk) 15:14, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:55, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:23, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! 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:
Ceiling of the Golden Hall representing Sapientia, City Hall Augsbourg.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Olivier LPB (talk) 01:59, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Votes sur les VIC

Bonjour Pierre André, merci de tes votes pour mes propositions d'images de valeurs, en revanche fais attention à quand tu viens voter, car par exemple dans notre cas cela retarde en fait la date de clôture de la proposition comme celle-ci est de nouveau commentée. Bonne semaine. Olivier LPB (talk) 22:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Bonjour Olivier,  Thank you. de m'avoir apporté cette précision, j'ignorai que la date de clôture était retardée à chaque apport de nouveaux commentaires. Bonne semaine, cordialement. --Pierre André (talk) 09:25, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Si c'est dans les trois jours après l'ouverture de la proposition, cela n'influe pas dans ce cas Olivier LPB (talk) 21:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

OK! merci pour cette info.- --Pierre André (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! 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:
Durst Enlargers M 601 and kit filters.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 10:46, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:09, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! 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:
Door bolts Embekka Devalaya Temple (Kandy).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Comment it would be useful that this image is used. . --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:18, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment  Done.- Thank you for your advice. --Pierre André (talk) 21:18, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:13, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! 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:
Rupert Mayer in Ettal Abbey.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

* Oppose - File:Ettal Abteikirche Rupert Mayer.jpg is brighter and more clearly visible. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:12, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• • Yes but the background is very disturbing, I've uploaded a new version, of my photo. Perhaps it's better, thank you for your advice.--Pierre André (talk) 09:45, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

***:My opinion remains the same. I'm not saying the other picture is a good picture; all I'm saying is that as a thumbnail in an article, it will be significantly easier to see details of the sculpture in that photo than in yours. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:20, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

•  Support User:Hohum reworked your file. If you accept the reworking, your photo is now best in scope at thumbnail and full-page size, though not at full size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment User:Hohum thank you, for the reworking of my photo.--Pierre André (talk) 20:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Photo challenge/2017 - January - Railways

I removed your files File:Tiradentes la Fumaca Maria.ogv and File:Zhangjiakou South Station 2014 Chine .ogv from the challenge as they are video. The challenge is (currently) only for still photos. I think it would be hard to judge video and still images together. You can discuss this on the photo challenge talk page if you wish. -- Colin (talk) 21:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment Colin OK! I will not polemic about removing my video files File:Tiradentes la Fumaca Maria.ogv and File:Zhangjiakou South Station 2014 Chine .ogv of the challenge. I did not know that the challenge was just for the photos. No problem, I have asked the question in a general way in the challenge talk page . A video challenge?.- Best regards.--Pierre André (talk) 22:06, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! 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:
Harry and Leone Goulding's memorial.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:03, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Olivier LPB (talk) 01:11, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vilnius old town August 2015 (9).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. Comments Good quality. --Milseburg 22:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wieskirche.- Bavière (1).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. Comments  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 16:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:14, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Schloss Hohenschwangau (Baviara 2016) (9).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. Comments Good quality. --Cvmontuy 00:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hohenschwangau village (Baviara) (1).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. Comments  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 16:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Alpensee view from Schloss Hohenschwangau ( Bavaria) (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. Comments Good quality. --Ermell 19:51, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! 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:
Nong Nokkheane Checkpoint, Stung Treng.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment Good, but the scope should be changed to Category:Nong Nokkheane Checkpoint. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for your advice.--Pierre André (talk) 09:42, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

•  Support Best in scope. Yann (talk) 11:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! 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:
Garuda in Prasat Kravan.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support, useful and best in scope. DeFacto (talk). 18:36, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Valued image promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! 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:
Statue of the Leper King at Angkor Thom.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:25, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. DeFacto (talk). 22:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

-- DeFacto (talk). 20:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! 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:
Yoni and Lingam, and Brahma sculpture in Kbal Spean.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment Are you sure about the description of this image? See File:Brahma (foreground) and a large Lingam (background) (3746580490).jpg, same place with a completely different description. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:46, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

 Comment Yes, I think; the description given is a "Yoni", see File:Quincunxlingakbalspean01.JPG. The file you are proposing is a "Lingua".- Maybe I should change the scop? Best regards.--Pierre André (talk) 09:37, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

So the description of the other picture is wrong? IMO, this is Brahma, not Vishnu. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:09, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I corrected this error, best regard. --Pierre André (talk) 15:51, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand what you corrected. The descriptions are still different. And I am not convinced this is Vishnu. The sculpture has 3 heads, which is a characteristic of Brahma. And while the square represents the yoni, the circle represents the lingam. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

You are right! This is the sculpture of the creator god Brahma, not Vishnu. I confused the Hindu mythological symbols carved in the river bed. Well of course I corrected my mistakes.  Thank you. --Pierre André (talk) 15:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Then you need to change the scope. I think Yoni and Lingam, and Brahma sculpture in Kbal Spean would be OK.

 Done mofification, thank you for your advice. Regard.--Pierre André (talk) 20:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

•  Support Best in scope. Yann (talk) 20:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! 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:
Prasat Yeah Puon Cambodia.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Best in scope. Yann (talk) 17:28, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Palauenc05 (talk) 23:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! 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:
Prasat Boram Cambodia..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Best in scope, but it would even be better if you have a version without the branches in the front. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment Alas, this is my only version.- thank you for your advice. Regards,--Pierre André (talk) 22:39, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Palauenc05 (talk) 23:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! 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:
Spean preah Toeûs bridge (Cambodia).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support - I believe this is best in scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 19:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! 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:
Villa Gabrielle in Villeneuve d'Ascq (South view).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. DeFacto (talk). 18:04, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! 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:
View N.E. Door of Gand, Lille..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful and used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! 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:
Replica Roman milestone (miliarium) (View North) on archaeological site of Alésia.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Question - What is a "miliaria"? It seems to be a skin disorder, and I don't see a definition related to what's in this picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

 Comment In ancient Rome, the milestones (in Latin miliaria au plur., Milliarium in sing.) were stone road posts generally in the form of columns bearing an inscription and intended to mark the distances on the route of the main Roman roads of the " Italy and the Roman provinces. As the name suggests, distances were measured in Roman miles, or about 1,460 meters.- This French article gives more explanations: False miliaria.-

Explanatory panel seen on the site: [[Alise-Sainte-Reine definition de la borne milliaire d ' Alésia]] --Pierre André (talk) 10:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

 Comment - Thank you. Armed with the knowledge of what a real miliarium is, I looked at the fr:Site archéologique d'Alésia article, and found out that this is a reconstituted miliarium, not a "false" one. But I don't think we'd use "reconstituted" in English. I'm struggling a bit for the word - something like "Ancient Roman miliaria rebuilt in modern times" would be clear, but I'd like some other people's opinions on how best to change the wording of the scope, so it's probably best not to do anything yet. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

 Comment, I think possibly "Replica Roman milestone (miliarium)..."? DeFacto (talk). 19:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, replica is the right word. Thanks, DeFacto. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for your advices. --Pierre André (talk) 10:07, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

•  Support - Best in scope (I see 2 pictures in scope including this one). Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. DeFacto (talk). 16:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! 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:
Bookbindings xii° century in Saint-Nectaire church (Puy-de-Dôme)..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment - About the scope: "Tresor" is not an English word. Should we use an English word to describe this? What is this box intended to store? Treasures in fact? If so, should we call it a safe? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment Looks like it's a reliquary, and best in scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• I my opinion the correct english translation for this french Trésor is church treasure. This would be too broad as a scope. --Berthold Werner (talk) 06:53, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• Berthold Werner, what do you think is the best scope for this? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• There is a specific scop to the region "Rhone-Alpes" Category:Church treasuries in Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes. Is it more appropriate? --Pierre André (talk) 11:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

The scope should be more exactly, it should contain the name of this specific object. Without knowledge od french i can not help, perhaps @Archaeodontosaurus: can? --Berthold Werner (talk)

I agree. The scope should specify what the reliquary contains (whose remains, and if needed for disambiguation, what particular remains) as well as the church it's in. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment There are indeed some inaccuracies in this appointment. It is not a "reliquary arm" nor in any way an element of reliquary. It is indeed a part of the treasure of the Church of St Nectaire but these are Bookbindings twelfth century. The caption and scope should be changed. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:04, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

•  Done Thank you for your advice. --Pierre André (talk) 14:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• Pierre André, we're not looking at book bindings; we're looking at a chest in which book bindings (and manuscripts?) are stored. The scope is wrong. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

 Comment This is, of course, the cover of the book. The scope is valid. As by exmeple Liber Landavensis binding.png --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:21, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I should have remembered the books with bejeweled covers. Well, in that case, we can say this is useful and  Support, can't we? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:12, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:10, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! 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:
Gupta style carving "Isrumuniya lovers" in Anurâdhapura Museum (Sri Lanka)..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support - Best in scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:48, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! 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:
East view of the belfry and Town hall of Merville.- Nord (French department)..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment - First, I think you mean an east view of the belfry, or a view of the belfry from the east. A view east of the belfry would mean that you are looking at something - not necessarily the belfry, and perhaps probably not - while yourself being to the east of the belfry. But second, is that really a meaningful scope, when there is File:Merville (9669011875).jpg this closeup view of the belfry to choose from? OK, maybe that view isn't precisely from the east, but is that so important, if the main point is to have a VI of a view of the belfry? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:07, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

  OK! I specify the definition which was badly established. Regards. --Pierre André (talk) 16:20, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• I hate to be a bug about this, but isn't this simply a view of the town hall from the east? The belfry is just part of the town hall, right? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:25, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• The belfry is just part of the town hall, it is a work of framework designed to support and allow to move bells. Regards --Pierre André (talk) 22:19, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• I know what a belfry is. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:42, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

• I understood well, hence my little point of humor to correct my error. best regard.--Pierre André (talk) 09:55, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

• I smiled, too. Good annotation of the belfry. Meets all requirements for scope, as far as I can see.  Support - Best in scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:02, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

•  Support - Great shot of the building. The angled view is much appreciated, in comparison to other images of the building in the category with only provide a face-on view. Good way of allowing the viewer to judge the building's area and volume. Since it's the only image of it's scope, a view of the building from the east, it is by default the best, not that it takes anything away from this fine image, of course. -- Philip Terry Graham (talk) 11:19, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! 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:
Saint Sebastian on stained glass windows in St Sebastien church, Annappes (France)..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Question The right side of the window seems odd, is it distorted in reality? --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done a correction distorsion with RawTherapee on the right vault. Regards, --Pierre André (talk) 08:51, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

•  Support Ok now --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:37, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Palauenc05 (talk) 15:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Reminder: Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2016 is open!

You are receiving this message because you voted in R1 of the 2016 Picture of the Year contest.

Dear Pierre André Leclercq,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2016 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eleventh edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2016) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. In Round 1, there were 1475 candidate images. There are 58 finalists in Round 2, comprised of the top 30 overall as well as the top #1 and #2 from each sub-category.

In the final round, you may vote for just one or maximal three image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 2 will end on 20 April 2017, 23:59:59 UTC.

Click here to vote »

Thanks,
--Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee 08:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Cap Gris-Nez

Bonjour,
Le Cap Gris-Nez ne fait malheureusement pas partie du PNM des estuaires picards et de la mer d'Opale. Celui-ci s'arrête un peu plus au sud. Voir le périmètre sur cette carte. Vos photos sont donc hors-zones protégées... Cordialement, Pmau (talk) 10:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Bonjour Pmau Merci pour cette info. En fait le libellé de la page wiki Parc naturel marin des estuaires picards et de la mer d'Opale, m'a induit en erreur.

Je me propose, toutefois dans le cadre de la campagne 2017, et avant la fin du mois d'aller faire de photos sur les sites suivants: • Platier d'Oye • Bois d'Encade • Carrière des Nerviens • Forteresse de Mimoyecques • Grande-Synthe et peut être ceux du: • Pont d'Ardres • Pré communal d'Ambleteuse Bien cordialement.- --Pierre André (talk) 10:50, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Super. J'attends vos images avec impatience. Pmau (talk) 11:00, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Ile de Groix

Bonsoir Pierre-André, merci pour vos photos de l'île de Groix. La RNN François le Bail concerne 2 secteurs de l'île à l'ouest et à l'est comme on peut le voir sur la carte de cette page. Le barrage de Port Melin n'en fait malheureusement pas partie... Cordialement. Pmau (talk) 17:07, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Bonsoir Pmau OK! merci pour la correction. J'avais pris les quelques photos postées ce jour lors d'une randonnée autour de l'Ile de Groix notamment du Fort du Grognon au Blockaus. Cordialement à vous bonne soirée.--Pierre André (talk) 19:59, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Image du jour de Wiki Loves Earth 2017 en France, 18 May 2017

Votre photo « RNR du vallon de la Petite Becque en 2017 (1).jpg » a été choisie par les bénévoles de Wiki Loves Earth 2017 comme image coup de cœur (ou image du jour) du 18 May 2017.

Cordialement, Pmau (talk) 07:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Merci Pmau et à toute l'équipe des bénévoles de Wiki Loves Earth 2017 .- Cordialement. --Pierre André (talk) 08:56, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Photo challenge/2017 - April - Nets/Winners

	Photo Challenge Winner
	Congratulations! Your picture Trincomalee Pêcheurs du Sri-Lanka.jpg won the 1st place in the Photo Challenge Nets, in April 2017. You can find the results of the challenge here.

-- Jarekt (talk) 02:39, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

 Thank you. Jarekt I'm happy with this score. Best regards, --Pierre André (talk) 08:44, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Saint-Malo Remparts plage de l'Eventail (1).jpg

Bonjour et merci pour votre participation à Wiki loves Monuments.

Cependant, la photo File:Saint-Malo Remparts plage de l'Eventail (1).jpg ne représente pas le monument historique ou l'élément du monument protégé par l'arrêté du ministère de la Culture que vous lui avez lié. Aussi suis-je obligé de le retirer du concours.

N'hésitez pas à ajouter d'autres clichés, en vérifiant que l'édifice ou l'élément pris en photo bien celui qui est protégé !

Bonne participation,

-- Marianne Casamance (talk) 07:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Bonjour Marianne Casamance, Merci pour votre message, avec toutes mes excuses pour ce fichier envoyé, par erreur.

Je n'au aucune objection à ce que vous le retirer du concours. Je retire la mention faite à Base Mérimée. Bien cordialement, --Pierre André (talk) 07:47, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Photo challenge/2017 - August - Panning/Voting

Pierre , you had 2 votes for the 3rd place and one for the 1st one. Can you fix? --Jarekt (talk) 03:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Jarekt correction done, sorry for this error. Best regards.- --Pierre André (talk) 16:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Images ne représentant pas un monument historique

Bonjour,

Dans le cadre des vérifications finales, je viens également de retirer certains fichiers concernant des bâtiments simplement inventoriés alors que le concours se concentre strictement sur les biens dit immobiliers et protégés au titre des monuments historiques. Voici la liste des fichiers retirés (en espérant ne pas avoir fait d'erreurs) : File:Wimereux la mairie en 2017.jpg, File:Wimereux marmite de l' église de l’Immaculée-Conception IM62001475.jpg, File:Wimereux viaduc de la ligne de chemin de fer Paris-Calais.jpg, File:Wimereux Villa Martin Pêcheur (WLM2017).jpg, File:Wimereux vue panoramique du viaduc à la mairie.jpg, File:Wimereux Église de l’Immaculée-Conception IM62001466.jpg, File:Wimereux Église l'Immaculée-Conception St Pierrre IM62001471.jpg, File:Wimereux Église l’Immaculée-Conception l'orgue de tribune.jpg.

Malgré tout, je tiens tout de même à sincèrement te remercier pour ces photos qui enrichissent Commons et surtout merci de façon globale pour ta participation au concours (sur 4 années consécutives !).

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 10:02, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Bonjour VIGNERON, Merci pour votre message, je n'ai aucune objection à ce que les fichiers envoyés soient retirés. Cordialement, --Pierre André (talk) 16:44, 10 October 2017 (UTC)