Yann

  Done. Rzuwig^► 10:55, 6 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hallo Yann,

I see you are incorrectly merging Pokemon items, like the cawiki Línia evolutiva de Totodile, which is about equal the enwiki Totodile, Croconaw, and Feraligatr, but not to the other language's Croconaw (or Totodile or Feraligatr for that matter). Could you please doublecheck before you perform such merges? -      - (Cycn/talk) 07:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

You may have been just this one, and other people may have done some similar merges, so it could be you never encounter such a merge again... -      - (Cycn/talk) 08:14, 21 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Dear Yann; I have seen your edit at Sanskrit Wikisource (Q15156667) and want to let you know that the number of WMF projects has increased to more then 385. You may be interested in adding labels and descriptions in other anguages, follow the discussion at property talk:P1800 and comment there. Best regards Gangleri also aka I18n (talk) 02:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Bonjour Yann, J'ai vu que vous aviez enrichi et modifié l'élément Impressions de mes voyages aux Indes (Q23946080)‎ que j'ai créé il y peu selon le modèle : Wikidata:WikiProject Books qui préconise d'établir un élément pour l'oeuvre/le livre et des éléments distincts pour chaque édition ou traduction. J'avais donc également crée un élément pour l'édition de 1915 Q23946141. Vous avez reporté les informations cette édition sur élément de l'oeuvre et supprimé le lien entre les deux éléments, ce qui était envisageable dans ce cas précis car il ne semble pas qu'il existe de réédition ni de traduction. Du coup il aurait été préférable de fusionner les deux éléments car l'item édition n'a plus lieu d'être. Je ne sais pas si tout ça est bien clair...n'hésitez pas à me demander des précisions.

J'en profite pour vous signaler que cet élément a été créé dans le cadre d'un projet sur les récits de voyage User:Shonagon/WikiProjet Récits de voyage qui pourra peut-être vous intéresser.

--Christelle Molinié (talk) 16:24, 12 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Christelle Molinié: Merci bien, mais il y a plusieurs problèmes avec les fiches que vos avez créées. 1. La page sur Wikisource doit être liée avec l'édition ; 2. l'autre page doit être une instance de "work/œuvre" (une création intellectuelle), et non de livre (un object physique) ; 3. en général, oui, il faut faire la différence entre l'édition et l'œuvre, mais ici, c'est un peu ridicule, car ce texte très confidentiel n'a eu qu'une seule édition, et n'en aura jamais d'autre. J'ai essayé de faire un "merge", mais ça n'a pas fonctionné. Du coup, j'ai copié les infos dans l'autre fiche. Je pense qu'on peut supprimer Q23946141. Si le sujet vous intéresse, j'ai importé plusieurs livres sur des récits de voyages, dont les fiches sont à créer. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

1. je suis d'accord avec vous et j'y veillerai 2. Oui bien évidemment. 3. Je ne vois pas en quoi c'est "ridicule", et cela ne me semblait pas poser de problème majeur. Je vous laisse supprimer l'élément qui vous dérange. Cordialement --Christelle Molinié (talk) 17:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Bonjour Yann, Apparemment il y a doublon pour émile driant :Q275053 et Q26235138... Hector (talk) 20:51, 8 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Corrigé par Jklamo. Yann (talk) 08:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Salut,

Je suis un peu perdu et à force de discuter de détail, j'ai du mal à comprendre la big picture de ce que tu souhaites obtenir avec une propriété Wikidata:Property proposal/copyright status. Avec toute les informations déjà disponibles, quelle est la raison pour vouloir cette propriété ?

@Hsarrazin: pour information.

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 18:49, 29 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Salut Nicolas,

Hélène a très bien expliqué la situation. La seule réelle solution alternative proposée est celle de Strakhov : utiliser "no value" avec public domain date (P3893). Je ne suis pas sûr si c'est compatible avec Wikidata, mais ça semble au moins une possibilité. Par contre, EncycloPetey n'a vraiment pas compris le besoin. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 18:19, 30 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Si je pose la question c'est bien parce que la situation n'est pas claire pour moi.

Pour "no value" ou "unknown value" c'est prévu dans la structure de Wikidata depuis 5 ans et très régulièrement utilisé. Par contre, attention au contresens public domain date (P3893) avec "no value" cela veut dire "il n'y a pas de valeur pour la date d'accession au domaine public", ce qui est englobant mais pas équivalent à "le document est dans le domaine public" (cela peut aussi vouloir dire "le document n'entrera jamais dans le domaine public").

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 19:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Oui, il me semblait bien que ça pouvait être ambigu, c'est pourquoi je pense toujours que ma proposition est meilleure. En plus, c'est souvent très compliqué de savoir à quelle date une oeuvre est entrée dans le domaine public. C'est déjà assez compliqué comme ça, je ne vois pas l'intérêt de compliquer encore les choses. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 19:08, 30 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Bonjour, voir aussi cette discussion - il y a aussi la possibilité d'indiquer plusieurs statuts successifs, avec les détenteurs de droits, comme souhaité pour les œuvres d'art… même si je ne maîtrise pas totalement la chose.

Pour moi, la "date d'accession au DP" rend la chose complexe, surtout si elle est "unknown" alors même qu'on est certain du caractère DP (vu l'ancienneté de l'oeuvre). Un affichage automatique du statut DP (par récupération lua) sur les oeuvres, pourrait être très intéressant, pour éviter des choses comme ça, ou du moins faciliter leur traitement...

De plus, il me semble infiniment plus simple de traiter par bot les milliers (dizaines, centaines de milliers) d'oeuvres qui sont à coup sûr DP que d'attendre que la date d'accession soit calculée pour chacune d'elle... même si ça n'empêchera pas de la calculer ensuite — un peu comme passer de PD-old à PD-old-auto|deathdate=XXXX :) --Hsarrazin (talk) 06:51, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

How do we know Anarchist Encyclopedia (Q3053903) in in PD? is there a reference that supports that claim, or PD template whose constraints it meets? --Jarekt (talk) 04:17, 29 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Jarekt: Hi,

It is a collective work, and more than 70 years passed since its publication. And its main contributor died in 1942, more than 70 years ago. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:25, 29 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Bonjour Yann, J'ai vu que tu as récemment fait supprimer cet élément (de façon un peu expéditive ?). Il me semble qu'il correspondait en effet à FWN 774, soit c:File:Paul Cezanne - Apples, Pears and Grapes.jpg. L'élément contenait un numéro d'inventaire de l'Ermitage, ce qui est généralement un bon indice qu'il y avait une source précise à l'origine. Alors, oui, il ne semble plus apparaître sur le site du musée, peut-être parce qu'il serait retourné à sa collection d'origine ? Mais cela justifie-t-il de le supprimer ?

Bon ce n'est pas un drame non plus... Et puisque tu t'es attaqué au catalogue raisonné avec User:Hsarrazin, je suppose que vous le re-créerez sous une nouvelle entrée. Ce serait intéréssant quand même de garder les informations qui étaient présentes comme celles d'inventaire. Cordialement, Nono314 (talk) 21:09, 4 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Nono314:

Salut à tous les deux...

ne pouvant plus consulter l'élément concerné, il est difficile de dire à quelle œuvre de Cézanne il correspond... ces liens qui n'existent plus à l'Hermitage sont une vraie galère, surtout quand le titre est "Montagne Sainte-Victoire" - c'est le cas d'un autre ;)

j'avais essayé d'identifier tous ces tableaux avec source Hermitage, et supprimé la demande de suppression en conséquence, mais je ne me rappelle pas avoir vu celui-ci - (edit : en fait, je ne travaillais pas encore sur ce projet le 26 mai...)

s'il s'agit effectivement de FWN 774, il serait sans doute souhaitable de le restaurer... sais-tu comment on fait ? --Hsarrazin (talk) 21:19, 4 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Hsarrazin:, Oui c'est embêtant de ne plus pouvoir accèder à l'élément, mais il est encore dans le cache Google... Le titre et la date de création semblent correspondre. L'argument principal de suppression était l'absence sur le site du musée d'un titre semblable, mais je pense que Commons et le cataloque en ligne attestent tous les deux de cette présence.

Aucune idée sur les sorts de nécromancie possibles pour le ressusciter. --Nono314 (talk) 22:08, 4 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Complément : j'ai aussi retrouvé le lien original sur archive.org. Il manque l'image bien sûr mais les dimensions semblent également compatibles. Il manque juste la provenance pour être 100% certain. --Nono314 (talk) 22:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Merci @Nono314:, effectivement, ça semble tout à fait correspondre (vu le catalogue raisonné, qui indique bien qu'il s'agit d'une collection privée en expo à l'Hermitage...). On va donc demander à l'effaceur de restaurer, en espérant que ça ira :) - Merci pour ce repérage :)

@Ymblanter:, could you please restore Apples, Peaches, Pears and Grapes (Q27976102), that we have found on other sources, that was deleted a little hastily, and can be completed, please ? Thanks --Hsarrazin (talk) 14:03, 6 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

J'a en fait, maj j'ai aussi control'e l'element avant d'en supprimer et je ne crois pas on peux identifier l'œuvre.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:39, 6 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Ymblanter: Nono314 found it in the Catalogue raisonné: https://www.cezannecatalogue.com/catalogue/entry.php?id=424 - and we have Commons picture File:Paul Cezanne - Apples, Pears and Grapes.jpg - it is not property of the Hermitage, but on loan or deposit to Hermitage from private collection. Same title, compatible size... (which is clearly indicated on the "Catalogue raisonné") it is most likely a match… --Hsarrazin (talk) 17:47, 6 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Nono314, Ymblanter: thanks for the restored item, and it's now completed with catalog and image ! --Hsarrazin (talk) 21:46, 6 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks @Hsarrazin: for addressing it! --Nono314 (talk) 22:12, 6 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Hsarrazin: If it is a private collection, hosted in the Hermitage museum, the "collection" should be "private collection", and the "location" should be the museum, right? Yann (talk) 08:08, 7 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

sur un autre élément, où j'avais fait ça, je me suis fait révoquer... il y avait un lien Hermitage de la même façon... il faudrait ajouter une date de début, date de fin... que je n'ai pas... - voir cette discussion avec user:Multichill... --Hsarrazin (talk) 08:10, 8 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi Yann, location (P276) should contain the most specific location so please don't change it from Musée d'Orsay (Q23402) to Paris (Q90). And why did you remove the title?. Multichill (talk) 16:53, 8 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Multichill: Musée d'Orsay (Q23402) is already mentioned in collection (P195). I don't see the point to have duplicate information. The title should be unique and preferably in French for a work by a French painter. English translations depend on various sources and are not reliable. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:32, 8 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Welcome to Wikidata Yann. For location (P276) we use the most specific location, that even goes as far as having items for Room 170 (Q19019133) and Nightwatch hall (Q25845794) This is not how we do it so please stop doing this and don't undo my edits. Undoing my edits borders vandalism and I don't like vandalism. @Nono314: can explain it in French if you don't believe me.

You shouldn't be removing sourced statements title statements. No need to be unique, let alone French. So please stop removing these valid statements. Multichill (talk) 19:12, 8 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello Yann, our goal on wikidata is to have data that is both correct and precise. As you know, the musée d'Orsay is part of Musées Nationaux and as such has many paintings from its collections on deposit in other museums (or public buildings), many in regions, some in Paris. So, it is not duplicate information: one says the painting is part of its collections, the other says it's also physically there, both may match or not. Each entry on the website of Orsay has a field "location" specifying where the painting is currently physically located (see e.g [1] or [2]), that's for a good reason ;-)

@Multichill: you unfortunately defaulted locations to Musée d'Orsay (Q23402) some time ago with your "collection with coordinates" batch and I still need to fix some of them to match the museum's website.--Nono314 (talk) 19:58, 8 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Multichill: OK for location (P276) (while I don't understand the fact that we have duplicate information), but I can't agree about title (P1476). If there is more than one value, it produces an error, so it can't be right. And I would not remove a title in another language if there is no French source, but here we have a French title back up by a reliable reference, while there is no reliable reference for the English title. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:04, 9 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hey Yann, that doesn't produce an error, that's just a suggestion. Please invest some time to understand how Wikidata works. Removing this data is counter productive. Multichill (talk) 19:56, 9 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Multichill: You are playing on words. That's a suggestion formatted like an error to me. Why is it counter productive? It is just common sense and logical to me. I have been here for a long time, much before Wikidata existed. What did I allegedly not understand? Regards, Yann (talk) 05:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Multichill: If you do not answer, I am going to revert you again. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:02, 12 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

You're removing valid title (P1476) statements, just don't do that. That's just vandalism. Multichill (talk) 17:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Multichill: This title is not valid. A title for a work of art only makes sense if it is given by the artist, here obviously in French. And don't make exaggerated statement, this is not vandalism. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:29, 13 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Sorry to break your bubble, but most works of art have titles assigned by art historians and museum curators, not by the artist itself. Titles for paintings are generally descriptive of what you see. The whole practice of an artist assigning a "formal" title is quite recent (last century). So titles in other languages than the native language of the artists are equally valid. You can ask one of the local art experts like Spinster or Jane023 if you don't believe me.

Anyway, Wikidata operates under the principle that sources are more important disagreeing over the "truth". Removing sourced statements that other users consider valid after being told several times not to do so is like repeatedly removing valid copyright statements on Commons, so no, I'm not exaggerating. Multichill (talk) 10:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Titles should be the ones used by the museum, and for other languages than the museum, then the title most commonly referred to in that language (for important artists there tend to be most-used catalogs that are written in the native language). For pre-1925 paintings, which includes impressionism, you'll find most catalogs are in English for the same reason most visitors in Musée D'Orsay tend to be American: the Americans loved impressionisme and the most important local heroes of many American art communities copied them in the 1890s and 1900s so this is what many Americans think of when they think of art. You can't change the course of art history for France, though I applaud your efforts and would support any efforts to return more impressionist paintings to their original homes. Please don't create bi-lingual titles though. The alias field is best used for alternate titles, not the label field. Jane023 (talk) 10:39, 13 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Multichill: Your derogatory comment is not appreciated. Come down from pretending you know it all, and stop pedantic remarks. @Jane023, Multichill: I use the Catalogue of the Paintings, Watercolors and Drawings of Paul Cezanne, which is certainly the most authoritative reference for Cezanne's works. Although it is an US catalogue in English language, the titles are in French. This only invalidates all your arguments. Fortunately, how works of art are named is not decided by American tourists in Paris, however numerous they may be. But I find this idea not only ridiculous, but also arrogant. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for this - now this discussion finally has some constructive points to it rather than irritating good faith editors all around! First of all, thank you for taking the time and trouble to set up that catalog. I for one really appreciate it. I apologize for any arrogance on my part, but I feel I have some reason to consider myself an art catalog expert here on Wikidata. With my expert eyes I can say that it looks like the work you are doing is extremely valuable, if somewhat incorrect according to our standards. So if I understand correctly, the work you are doing is based on The Paintings, Watercolors and Drawings of Paul Cezanne: An Online Catalogue Raisonné (Q63489514), which is an online database, not a published catalog. I think it's great to do this but I am wondering if it wouldn't be better just to propose a property for this. The paintings can get the property and any English or French titles can then be pumped into a title property title (P1476) using the proper reference as I just did for Still Life with Commode (Q63532764). Next problem to solve is your insistence that this is the definitive catalog. Though the latest catalogs may be seen that way by current scholars, we try to keep the work of past art historians as well as the full provenance of paintings intact on Wikidata. Museum titles, especially in those cases where the museum still uses them on their website, should definitely not be changed by Wikidatans, no matter how clever or arrogant we are. In the case above, titles are missing for many languages. Art lovers in those languages should feel free to add the titles from Cézanne catalogs in their native language (which is a practise already followed when you look at Wikipedia articles for example). The discretion of the Wikipedian is generally the leading one, whether or not the native language of the artist or the cataloger should be used in the label, but in any case at least the other title should be in the alias. So theoretically for Dutch, I could add another Dutch title as alias for Still Life with Commode (Q63532764). Without bothering to look I would guess the Dutch catalog would use the museum title because of the age of the painting record in the collection. However I could imagine for German probably their native language would be in the label, but I don't know for sure. Jane023 (talk) 08:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Derogatory? That's not the intention at all. We've been modelling art here for a while, well before sum of all paintings started and that's already almost five years ago. We work by establishing consensus, having open discussions and come to an agreement. You come barging in and starting doing things differently against well established consensus. Instead of listening you just keep pushing back and keep telling us why your way is the best way.

So please, just keep both English and French titles. You can set the French title to preferred rank if you like. I don't think anyone will disagree with that. Is that a good compromise? Multichill (talk) 14:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Yann: - Also see the discussion I started on the Project Chat about this similar issue: Wikidata:Project_chat#Mixed_language_labels_for_artworks. -- Fuzheado (talk) 05:49, 14 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yann, my commons and meta.wiki accounts were recently blocked by two of the admins. There is no logical explanation behind these. I had only done 12 edits on meta.wiki and 0 edits on commons. They even took away my permission to edit the discussion page so that I could not defend myself or request the removal of the block. Please check. Thank you. XJ999 (talk) 04:59, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Dear admin Yann, my Wikimedia Commons and Wikimedia Meta-Wiki accounts were blocked due to a misunderstanding. Of course, I fully respect the admin who did this. I tried to explain to her many times but unfortunately I did not get a positive answer. Regards, please unblock my account. I have always been subject to the rules and need to upload photos for my articles. I make sure I follow Wikimedia rules. Please give me this chance. Sincerely AG Manana (talk) 07:52, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

These accounts were blocked by a checkuser, who identified that you abused multiple accounts. Yann (talk) 18:22, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Yann: Please do not answer such questions from these accounts. They are evading a block and global lock (so is @John CENA MC70 who reverted your reply twice, they’re going to be blocked in due time). 174.202.2.118 19:55, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yann, I extended further information as further proof to back up your reply to the latest message you replied to about the socks. I am able to confirm that Manana is indeed blocked on meta.wiki. 72.253.173.253 19:44, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Much appreciated. 174.202.2.118 22:28, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikidata:Requests for comment/Sockpuppet investigations/MegaMack02. This is in relation to an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 174.202.2.118 22:57, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello, thanks for your film video uploads and for adding them to their relevant Wikidata items.

Could you please also set qualifier "object has role" "full video available on Wikimedia Commons" when you add them?

This makes them eventually show up in WikiFlix, a UI for public domain films under development.

I also asked Hinnk to do so. I think in doubt it would still be better to set full video on the item rather than nothing or "part of a work" as one could still change it to "part of a work" later if it turns out to miss substantial parts of the film.

Moreover, it would also be nice if you added a Commons:Category:Videos of films by year subcategory to your full-length uploads on WMC because I may stop adding them at any point and these contain nearly all the videos of films on WMC, making them much more easy to find, create statistics of, add to pages, and organize. For films that are classed as short films on the wikidata item, or the Wikipedia page, or as a rule of thumb are shorter than ca 45 minutes, if possible please add Commons:Category:Short films videos. Thanks again! Prototyperspective (talk) 11:35, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply