User talk:Mithril/Archive 1

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search



Pay attention to copyright
File:Helix.pomatia.pharynx.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk.

The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion.

Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Afrikaans | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | বাংলা‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Luxembourgish | Македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | Malti | မြန်မာဘာသာ | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | Українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

--Snek01 (talk) 19:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Answered here. Mithril (talk) 13:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Alexandrium_tam2_f1.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 remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | Български | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I've just cropped that image because it was used in the russian wikipedia. Mithril (talk) 21:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: wing veins of crane flies[edit]

Hi Mithril, I'm not sure if I understood correctly your message. You wrote: I've access to some identification keys on dipterans and found there the following phrase about tipulids: "Four branches of R have junctions with the edge of the wing in most species. In a few species only three R veins join with the edge since R2 is reduced." That's strange because on your image R2 doesn't join with C but only with R1 and R3.

I think that this phrase or the interpretation is confused: in a few species only three R veins join with the edge since R2 is reduced. R2 is always reduced and joining to R1, so, the first stem of R is R1+2, the second R3, the third R4 and the fourth R5. Some crane flies (Tipula sp.) species have only three branches of R riching the edge because R4 is fused with R5 (Alexander & Byers, 1981, in Manual of Nearctic Diptera, Vol. 1).

You wrote also: There's also mentioned that four medial veins exist.

There are two different interpretation of the origin of M4 vein. According to Hennig and more old works, the posterior branch of M has in primitive Diptera four stems (M1, M2, M3, M4. The anterior branch is lost in all insects). But McAlpine et al. in the Manual of Nearctic Diptera assumed that M4 is the first stem of the anterior branch of Cu, so, M has only three branches or fewer. Cite McAlpine (Manual of Nearctic Diptera, vol 1):

MP [posterior media] has only three free branches, M1 to M3 (Comstock 1918, Friend 1942, Hennig 1973). M4 never occurs as a separate, free vein in the Diptera, and for practical taxonomic purposes it seems preferable to adopt Comstock's (1918) recommendation to omit any reference to it in the designation of veins throughout the order. Comstock (1918) believed that it coalesced with either M3 or CuA1. Tillyard (1926) interpreted CuA1 as a free M4. However, the distinctive nature of the cubital fork throughout the Diptera and the strong convexity of both its branches (as opposed to a primitively concave condition in all branches of MP) indicate that the vein in question is primarily derived from CuA rather than from M4.
This interpretation is not accepted by all Authors (p.a. Amorim & Yeates in a recent work have interpreted this vein as M4), but most dipterists use CuA1 instead of M4 in all works after McAlpine et al. (1981-1987) in their works in the Manual of Nearctic Diptera.

I think that your keys are not recent. Greetings --gian_d (talk) 18:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer and usefull references! Mithril (talk) 19:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Aeginura grimaldii by Haeckel.png[edit]

Hello Mithril, for your information, I've adjusted your license on that image to {{PD-retouched-user}}. For obvious reasons you can't self-license something as expired because you aren't dead yet ;) De728631 (talk) 20:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try to die not sooner than 70 years ago the next time. There's a problem with the template as far as I see. I've tried to add russian version but failed in understanding the code. Mithril (talk) 21:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Фотография Л. Р. Кабо[edit]

Просветите меня, пожалуйста, где находится файловое хранилище русской википедии, о которой Вы упоминали, и чем правила его использования отличаются от правил викисклада. Holothrop (talk)

  • Хранилище находится в так называемом пространстве файлов, про которое можно почитать здесь. Mithril (talk) 02:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Наиболее существенное для Вас отличие в правилах: в Википедии можно размещать «несвободные» файлы при соблюдении критериев добросовестного использования. Основанием для загрузки в таких случаях служат необходимость проиллюстрировать статью и отсутствие замещающих иллюстраций, распространяемых под свободной лицензией. Это не единственные критерии, поэтому внимательно изучите страницу по ссылке выше. Вероятно, в Вашем случае возникнет трудность с пунктом 4: «Проверяемость. Несвободный материал должен быть правомерно опубликован где-либо ранее». Как преодолеть этот пункт, я пока не знаю, возможно, в случае семейного архива действуют исключения. Во всяком случае, есть пара веток в архиве форума по авторскому праву (майской и октябрьской, возможно, устаревший подход: 2009 год) и файлы-прецеденты (коих немало находит Google). Есть вот ещё FAQ на эту тему, лаконично советующий долго не размышлять, а сразу создавать ветку на форуме по авторскому праву. Наверное, именно так Вам и следует поступить. И, между делом, обратите внимание участников форума на то, что Вы ещё не получили статус загружающего и Вам понадобится не только совет, но и техническая поддержка. Если Вы всё ещё тверды в своём намерении, дайте мне знать, когда поднимете тему на форуме. Mithril (talk) 02:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
  • P. S.: Если анонимная реплика в обсуждении Túrelio оставлена Вами, рекомендую воздержаться в дальнейшем от подобного тона. Помните, что в проектах фонда Викимедия разъяснение правил — жест доброй воли, а не обязанность. Я спокойно отношусь почти к любому тону, но другие участники могут оскорбиться. Mithril (talk) 02:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Вы отменили на моей странице обсуждения мои правки[edit]

Уважаемый, я зачеркнул указанные вами ссылки на проблемные файлы по которым не может быть вопросов. Почему вы отменяете мои изменения? Это я делаю для удобства работы с ссылками. Те ссылки на файлы которые я загрузил по ошибке, и согласен с их удалением я думал убрать вообще, но если вы против я бы просто их зачеркнул. --Vladlen666 (talk) 00:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Вообще не нужно ничего делать с моей репликой. Это мои слова и ничьи больше. Мне безразлично, что Вам кажется по этим файлам, поскольку Вы продолжаете размещать в описании файлов подложную информацию на языке, которым сведущие в правилах участники проекта обычно не владеют. Mithril (talk) 01:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Я к сожалению в недостаточной степени владею английским. И еще почему-то мне кажется что я вас чем то обидел или задел. Не припомню чем и как. Но поверте я не имею ничего против вас. И если где-то поступил опрометчиво например с картинкой сибирского сига, но не хотел этим вас обидеть. Я с благодарностью учту ваши указания на мои ошибки. --Vladlen666 (talk) 01:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Morpho didius[edit]

  • Thank you for your corrections, I'm not very good in entomology... --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Always welcome. Please be more considerate while adding Phoebus images to Wikipedia. E.g. in this edit you've changed a bright photograph of living specimen with your photograph of killed, pinned and dried one. The depth of field is important but dealing with articles about live organisms you should remember that corpse is less preferable that living being. In the case with that ant you might add one more image without replacing. Mithril (talk) 09:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
You're absolutely right. But I am an enthusiast, and this project is so interresting. I'll go slower! спасибо.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Szi - Hippospongia equina 1.jpg[edit]

Hi Mithril,

Why NHM is not a good source? Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 14:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

You were supposed to put there the source of the free media. Depending on case it may look like {{own}}, a phrase “Kindly granted by the author”, an url of the page where it was published first, etc. Mithril (talk) 15:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Please give an example. I don't understand. DenesFeri (talk) 15:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

You've uploaded not a sponge, but a photo of sponge. The value of the parameter “Source” answers the question “Where did you get the file?”, but not “How was it created?” or “Who has made it?”. If the photo was made by you, the value should be {{own}}. If it's made by someone else, declare please where did you get the file. The variant “NHM” means that you've get the photo from the NHM collection of photographs. Mithril (talk) 15:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the examples! Now I understand. Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 08:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Always welcome. Mithril (talk) 17:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Look at the picture. Now it is ok? DenesFeri (talk) 09:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I think so. Good luck! Mithril (talk) 17:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! DenesFeri (talk) 09:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

File:1 - Perciformes sp. Kew.jpg[edit]

Hi Mithril,

What is your opinion about this fish, File:1 - Perciformes sp. Kew.jpg? It is one of this two sp. or it is neither one? Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 15:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

File tagging File:Megaselia scalaris.jpg[edit]

{{Autotranslate|1=File:Megaselia scalaris.jpg|base=Image permission}} Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The file was transferred from the English Wikipedia where it was marked as permitted by the author for publishing ander CC-BY. Do you think that's incredible? Mithril (talk) 09:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I've sent request for OTRS to the photographer. Mithril (talk) 09:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Correct; the original uploader at English Wikipedia failed to provide appropriate permission; I only notified you because it's done by the automatic script (itself done because it assumes you have a horse in the race, given that you reuploaded it here). Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

OTRS recieved the letter. Mithril (talk) 20:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

File tagging File:Y-cyprid.png[edit]

{{Autotranslate|1=File:Y-cyprid.png|base=Image permission}} Moros y Cristianos 18:50, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

All contents of BMC Biology journal is officially licensed under CC-BY-2.0. See the source page. No OTRS needed in such cases. Mithril (talk) 07:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I have checked and stand corrected. Sorry for troubling you. Moros y Cristianos 14:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Julia Pevzner[edit]

This is the picture of Julia Pevzner, an opera director, I got the picture from Julia Pevzner herself by mail, and got the signed permission from Yosi Zevker, the photographer, who owned the copyrights, and sent it to wiki commons. I always upload pictures that I got the signed permission from the copyrights owner, with no exception, I never take picture from any other source. Please give back the picture. Tzahy Lerner (talk) 13:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I can't understand what are you talking about, I've never dealed with Julia Pevzner photos as far as I remember. If you think that this template was addressed to you, you're mistaken. I sent it to Moros y Christianos. It seems you and I both have a conflict with extra diligent users. I can only advise you to use all the patience. Mithril (talk) 13:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, thought it was you, I got the signed permission from the copyrights owner. Tzahy Lerner (talk) 07:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Good luck then! Mithril (talk) 07:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


I wish you Happy Easter! DenesFeri (talk) 16:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh.. thanks! In Russia we celebrate Easter on the orthodox calendar (on 15th of April this year). But that really doesn't matter. Mithril (talk) 17:06, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Línea indentada

Tree of life images[edit]

You warned me in my talk page about the legal status of several images I uploaded from the Tree of Life Project. I personally verified that every image i uploaded was in "public domain" according to the same web page. For example, on this link you can check the legal status of this image. --Ninovolador (talk) 00:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I know that these are claimed to be public domain on the ToL. Lets try to understand how it can be. The images were published in Brussels (Belgium) in 1934/1935. The author of the volume was Max Beier (1903–1979). Then lets see what type of license you have declared:
File:Acromantis oligoneura.jpg: {{PD-author}}
Did Max Beier know about the PD before his death in 1979?
File:Parablepharis kuhlii.jpg{{PD-US}}
File:Paratoxodera cornicollis.jpg{{PD-US}}
File:Odontomantis planiceps.jpg{{PD-US}}
Is the Brussels a part of the US? Was the work published before 1923?
File:Aethalochroa ashmoliana.jpg{{self|Cc-zero}}
File:Theopropus elegans.jpg{{self|Cc-zero}}
File:Musoniella argentina.jpg{{self|Cc-zero}}
Are you the author of these works?
I can imagine the only way it being in the PD: (1) the author of these drawings is different from the main author of these volumes of Genera Insectorum and (2) the author of the drawings died before 1942 – {{PD-old-70}}. However we need to prove it and to put his name into the “author” field. Mithril (talk) 03:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, i don't know how to deal the licenses very well.. i just followed the semi automatic instructive to upload the pictures. If you delete it i don't mind, though. --Ninovolador (talk) 01:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Well it's not a grievous fault. Just remember that (1) {{PD-US}} is for works originally published in the USA only, (2) {{self|...}} is for your own works only, (3) {{PD-author}} is for cases when the author explicitely declared his will. Mithril (talk) 07:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)