User talk:DenesFeri/Archív04

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

not own work?

[edit]

Hi DenesFeri, if I understand your description correctly, then File:Vitis vinifera - 20120829.jpg, File:Asterales - Cichorium intybus - 20120831.jpg and File:Cat from Transylvania - 20120831.jpg are not your own work, but by "Emőke Dénes", right? Then, you need to provide his or her permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (OTRS). --Túrelio (talk) 08:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Túrelio,
Emőke Dénes is my sister. She made this pictures so I could uploaded here, in Commons. It is writen in every picture: kindly granted by the author. Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 08:57, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Nevertheless, our policy in such a situation (uploader is not the author) requires a direct confirmation from the author. It's not that I wouldn't believe you, but it's simply our policy. As you seem to upload a lot of images from your sister and she being your sister, she might agree to give you a "blanket" permission for your uploads of her images. Please look at Commons:OTRS for some background information and for a ready-made permission template. It seems we don't have it in Hungarian, though in several other languages. Please copy and edit the boxed permission template from OTRS and where it says "SPECIFY THE WORK HERE .." add a list of the filenames of all images from your sister. If she is willing, she might then add something like "and any further uploads of my images by my brother Feri". At the bottom, where it says "SENDER'S NAME ..." you or she should write her full name and city (remember the content of theis permission mail will not be published). Finally she should email it to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org . You do not need to do this today, but within the next weeks would be nice. --Túrelio (talk) 09:08, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I will sent this message to my sister. But meanwhile can I continue ulpoading the pictures? There are 50 more. DenesFeri (talk) 09:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. If you don't plan to continuously upload images from your sister (congrats to her nice images!), then just finish this series and thereafter care about the permission. --Túrelio (talk) 09:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could she give a long lasting permission? That I don't bother here every time? DenesFeri (talk) 09:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I can't not upload from my sister, because all the pictures I ever uploaded here, and I will ever upload here, are from my sister. DenesFeri (talk) 09:21, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure to understand you. Is this a question? O.k., if all your uploads are and will be coming from your sister, then a "blanket" permission, as described above, from your sister would be the best solution. OTRS will then issue an OTRS ticket, which you can then put to all your past and future uploads and everything is fine. Besides, as images with discrepant author/uploader name sometimes confuse re-users and lead to wrong attribution, you might consider adding your sister's name to the license template, such as I have done now with File:Octopus vulgaris - Madeira.jpg. See, whether you like it, otherwise you can revert it. --Túrelio (talk) 09:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Thank you! DenesFeri (talk) 09:37, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like this File:Loligo vulgaris - Madeira.jpg? DenesFeri (talk) 09:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Of course, you should talk to your sister about this, it's actually her choice, as she is the author. --Túrelio (talk) 09:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give me your email adress, so I give it to my sister, so you two could talk about this problem? DenesFeri (talk) 10:04, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can find a contact link on my userpage User:Túrelio in the tool box. However, as I am rather busy with my admin work and in RL, I would prefer if you would explain to your sister the permission thing and the attribution thing (rather easy). Both things are not urgent. Besides, I don't speak a word Hungarian. --Túrelio (talk) 10:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But she speaks perfectly English, not like me. And it would be great if you two agree in this matter. DenesFeri (talk) 10:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then activate email contact in your user settings, as I don't like to publicly post my email address. --Túrelio (talk) 10:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is done. DenesFeri (talk) 10:51, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pteridopsida

[edit]

Hi,

I discovered today that The World Checklist of Selected Plant Families does not contain Pteridopsida species. How come a site like this, doesn't have them? Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 10:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WCL is a work in progress and it does not contain all plants. To my knowledge, there is no global list of these plants. But you can consult different floras and specialized sites as for example:
Uleli (talk) 21:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! DenesFeri (talk) 08:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Boraginaceae - Myosotis stricta - London 1.jpg

[edit]

Myosotis stricta is very small plant (10-25 cm) with small leaves and flowers. I do not know what species is on the pictures. Kenraiz (talk) 09:47, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Senecio erucifolius vs. Jacobaea erucifolia

[edit]

Hi Tangopaso,

According to the The Global Compositae Checklist [1] Senecio erucifolius [2] and Jacobaea erucifolia [3] are two different plant species, with two different homeranges S. erucifolius [4] and J. erucifolia [5]. Could you tell me your opinion about this, please? Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 09:09, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
I apologize, but I am not a botanic specialist and I dont have any advice about your question. I am interested by succulent plants and cactuses, but I am disappointed when seeing the changes of names. For example, the nice name Lobivia (anagram of the name of country Bolivia) changed to Echinopsis. Or Notocactus changed to Parodia. It is hard to understand and it makes genuses with (too) many species. Best regards. --Tangopaso (talk) 19:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, than. No problem. Thanks. DenesFeri (talk) 08:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On your pictures of Bombus subterraneus there is actually a completely different species

[edit]

Hello,

I'm studying apiology and I must say that you have unfortunately identified these pictures http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Iz_-_Bombus_subterraneus_-_UK_1.jpg wrong.

This is B. subterraneus http://www.bwars.com/index.php?q=bee/apidae/bombus-subterraneus, which has been seen in the UK only in one area after the year 2000 and before that was declared extinct in UK. What you have in the pictures is Andrena cineraria (http://www.bwars.com/index.php?q=bee/andrenidae/andrena-cineraria), which is quite common in UK :)

Re:Phrynops geoffroanus

[edit]

Hi DenesFeri, sorry for the delay answering. Yes, that photo is not from Phrynops geoffroanus. This one is. I am not an expert in turtles in general (I know a bit about the south american ones), but it looks to me like a member of en:Trionychidae; although I could be completely wrong :) Sorry for not being more useful. Best. --Erfil (talk) 17:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year

[edit]

...to you too!Uleli (talk) 17:48, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eriophyes triradiatus

[edit]

Hi Uleli,

If you have time and want to, than please create this category: Eriophyes triradiatus. Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 08:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the accepted name for this species seems to be Stenacis triradiatus, so I created that name instead, with a redirect from the name Eriophyes triradiatus. Uleli (talk) 16:34, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thank you! but according to the enwiki the Eriophyes is the valid name. DenesFeri (talk) 08:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look: [6] DenesFeri (talk) 08:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please ask a zoologist about the correct and current name. A brief internet sulf indicate that the current status is Stenacis triradiatus, but I can't value these. I am into plants.
Uleli (talk) 19:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will ask one; and thank you! DenesFeri (talk) 08:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Denesferi Dr Enrico de Lillo, Universita degli Studi di Bari, Italia is the group specialist for Fauna Europaea has Stenacis triradiatusas the corrrect placement. Use this name. How are you? Best regards Robert aka Notafly (talk) 13:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Ophidiaster ophidianus?

[edit]

Hi FredD,

Are you sure that this File:Ophidiaster ophidianus1.jpg is not Ophidiaster ophidianus? And why? And what else could it be? regards. DenesFeri (talk) 08:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, it is definitely not an Ophidiaster ophidianus, and obviously not even a species of the Ophidiasteridae family. Ophidiaster ophidianus has rounded and flexible arms, and neither triangular nor pointed - it shares somehow the same appearance as the Linckia species, with a different color and longer arms. Your specimen looks very much like the "sandstars" of the Paxillosida order, with its distinct flat surface and digging ossicles (it may be an Astropecten, but I don't master this genus enough to be definitive). As it appears to be a souvenir, I think it has been dyed (like on this picture).
Here are my reasons : why did you think it was an Ophidiaster ophidianus ? Regards, FredD (talk) 08:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

identity

[edit]

Hi Denes - what is your evidence for File:Phoenix theophrasti - Malta.jpg being Phoenix theophrasti? It looks more like P. canariensis; also, its size means it is likely older than the description of P. theophrasti as a new species (1967). I have moved it to Cat:Unidentified Phoenix for the time being. - MPF (talk) 20:55, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 12:01, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Polistes nimpha killing an Apis mellifera-20140819-1.jpg

[edit]
File:Polistes nimpha killing an Apis mellifera-20140819-1.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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 ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Yann (talk) 10:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Images from Wilhelm Leche

[edit]

Hi, Images from Wilhelm Leche should be {{PD-old-70}} + {{PD-1923}}. Could you please fix that? Thanks, Yann (talk) 10:31, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will try. cheers. DenesFeri (talk) 13:23, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File tagging File:Cerceris rybyensis killing an halictid bee-20140819-3.jpg

[edit]
العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Cerceris rybyensis killing an halictid bee-20140819-3.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

russavia (talk) 08:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Old uploads, and future uploads

[edit]

MDann has offered to help with the old files. I will look into the handling of future files. Please note an open issue in the permission of File:Cerceris rybyensis killing an halictid bee-20140819-1.jpg--Sphilbrick (talk) 15:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aceria macrorhynchus or Aceria macrochela?

[edit]

Dear DenesFeri,

After reading nl:Esdoornnerfhoekmijt (which is the Dutch name for Aceria macrochela) I wondered if two images you uploaded in 2011 are correctly classified. I have linked them below:

The Dutch article mentions the following characteristics of Aceria macrochela:

  • The galls form:
    • where the veins split, and
    • at the base of the leaves.
  • The mites parasite Acers and preferably Acer campestre, (field maple, magyar: mezei juhar)

The galls in your pictures happen to have formed on field maple leaves and their distribution on the leaf matches the description above. Moreover, the color and form and dimensions of the galls on your photos differ markedly from the other pictures in Category:Aceria macrorhynchus.

Non-scientific sources often misclassify galls, so I am not absolutely sure. Even so one can't fail to spot the strange dichotomy in Category:Aceria macrorhynchus. Hopefully you will be able to resolve this issue. I think re-categorization is necessary.

Kind regards, 82.171.6.217 13:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Well, I don't know. But I will recategorize them.

Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 10:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

not Monorhaphis chuni?

[edit]

Hi Thiotrix,

I believe that in the museum, on the label it was written Monorhaphis chuni, but I'm not an expert. If you are sure that it is not, than write on my talkingpage. File:Szi - Monorhaphis chuni.jpg. ok? Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 08:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DenesFeri, Monorhapis has just one giant basal spicule (look here). But the sponge on your photograph has many hanging silica structures and is probably a Hyalonema species. Cheers --Thiotrix (talk) 11:55, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK than. Thank you for your answer! Than it is not Monorhaphis chuni. Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 08:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File tagging File:Allamanda cathartica - Kerala 2.jpg

[edit]
العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Allamanda cathartica - Kerala 2.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

Stefan4 (talk) 21:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will put you in contact with my sister. You will receive an email from me. Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 07:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: The permission statement should be sent to OTRS, not to me. The e-mail address to OTRS is given in the notice above. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK. It will be sent to OTRS. DenesFeri (talk) 09:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, please take a look at Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#File:Allamanda_cathartica_-_Kerala_2.jpg.--Wdwd (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pristis Pristis Image Issue

[edit]

I was looking at your image of the common sawfish (Pristis pristis) specimen from the Grant Museum of Zoology, and I couldn't help but notice what appear to be barbels. If those are indeed barbels, this specimen cannot be a common sawshark, which lack barbels. If present, barbels are a clear indication that what we are looking at is a sawshark, which is an entirely different animal from a sawfish. All sawshark species have barbels, a feature which the sawfish lack. As a shark enthusiast, I cannot overlook this possible error. Please look into the matter. Did you see barbels when you took the photo? Are those barbels in the picture or something else? Please correct me if I'm wrong, and let me know if the mistake is on your end or mine. Below is the picture in question. Anasaitis (talk) 20:31, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note what appear to be barbels on the specimen.

Thank you for the clarification. I couldn't tell from the image itself whether they were barbels or something else, so I didn't want to remove the image without checking with you. If that is indeed what the specimen label said, and the "barbels" were nothing more than fallen tissue or something from another specimen, then there is no reason to assume their was an error on you or the museum's part. I'll take your word for it and leave it be. I'd also like to thank you for the swiftness of the reply. I've found that trying to work with other users can be frustrating due to the fact that they are often slow to reply or busy with something else. Thus, I was pleasantly surprised by the swiftness of your response. If most of the others were like you, we wouldn't have as many problems as we do now. Thanks again! Anasaitis (talk) 22:40, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:001 - unidentified plant 1.jpg

[edit]

Hi. If your photograph was in a garden, it is pretty safe to say that it is the Aspargus one eats and that would be the Category:Asparagus officinalis. Cheers, Amada44  talk to me 10:26, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Saxifragales - Sedum spurium - 1.jpg

[edit]

Of course it is also Sedum spurium/Phedimus spurium (these names are synonims, it is not clear which is correct, according to The Plant List the correct one is Sedum spurium but confidence level is weak).

The plant from File:001 - unidentified plant 9.jpg and others looks like Category:Petasites albus. Kenraiz (talk) 12:07, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Sedum maximum

[edit]

To resolve such problems use The Plant List. Yes, both names means the same species and Hylotelephium maximum is a synonym of Sedum maximum. Kenraiz (talk) 09:10, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I use one of your photos

[edit]

Hello DenesFeri!

I have used a photo of Alcyonium digitatum in my free software educational proyect "Animalandia" (http://animalandia.educa.madrid.org)

You can see directly in the follow link:

http://animalandia.educa.madrid.org/imagen.php?id=45165

If you wish (and I hope yes), you can send me (via fernando.lison@educa.madrid.org) some letters or/and a photo for your "contributor profile" in Animalandia:

http://animalandia.educa.madrid.org/autor.php?nombre=D%E9nes+Em%F6ke

I want show to my students (and so everybody) that Animalandia is make for "real person", and I can tell them about "generosity", "share" and other similar words that we use very few at this time...

This is my "contributor profile" and others, for example:

http://animalandia.educa.madrid.org/autor.php?nombre=Fernando%20Lis%F3n%20Mart%EDn

http://animalandia.educa.madrid.org/autor.php?nombre=Carmen%20Jim%E9nez

http://animalandia.educa.madrid.org/autor.php?nombre=David%20P%E9rez

http://animalandia.educa.madrid.org/autor.php?nombre=Steve%20Garvie%20%28Rainbirder%29

In the future, I use more of your photos, I sure!

Thank you for the licence and, of course, for your splendid photos!!

Regards!

Fernando Lisón, from Spain --Fernando.lison (talk) 17:40, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Oryza sativa - Kerala 3.jpg

[edit]
File:Oryza sativa - Kerala 3.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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 ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Roland zh (talk) 17:45, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Oryza sativa - Kerala 3.jpg

[edit]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Oryza sativa - Kerala 3.jpg What the fuck?! I have already changed the owner of this picture. DenesFeri (talk) 08:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DenesFeri: We have a procedure for verifying authorship of files: COM:OTRS. This procedure is linked to extensively throughout Commons, and has been in place for 10 years. Follow that procedure, and the OTRS agent will request the file's undeletion. Storkk (talk) 08:40, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: you will probably have to explain why you originally credited it to a third party (as implied by "kindly granted by...") before claiming you created it yourself. Storkk (talk) 08:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of the Declaration of consent for all enquiries [13], Emőke Dénes has to fill the declaration, or I? And for all of the pictures all at once, or for ich one separately? And this declaration will comply for the future pictures to? DenesFeri (talk) 08:54, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright holder (the actual creator) must fill it out. They can do it once for as many files as you have already uploaded. It just has to be clear for future agents that the copyright holder knew exactly which files they were referring to (so "all files uploaded by XYZ" only makes sense for files before the ticket date). They will have to do it again for future files. Out of curiosity, given that you lied to try to prevent the file's deletion, how do you justify swearing at Ellin above? Storkk (talk) 09:20, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First, thank you for the answers! Second I didn't lie about preventing the file's deletion; where do I lied? And I sweared at Ellin, because it deleted my picture. I spent time uploading and describing the pictures - in 2 languages -, so I'm mad if someone deleted them. DenesFeri (talk) 11:06, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You changed the "author" and "source" of the file to your username and {{Own work}} but you said above that you were not the author. We're veered off-topic for Ellin's Talk page, so if you have further questions about what to do, feel free to contact me on my Talk page, but I can't help much more than point you again to COM:OTRS. The next step after OTRS permission submission is for the OTRS agent to request the file's undeletion. Storkk (talk) 11:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the "author" and "source" of the file, to save it from deletion. I already sent the Declaration of consent for all enquiries to my sister, Emőke. Now we must wait a while. DenesFeri (talk) 12:06, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Philaethria dido - Bristol 1.jpg

[edit]

Hi @DenesFeri: , may I ask what made you choose the species Philaethria dido? As far as I can see, all species of the genus Philaethria look very similar to one another... --LamBoet (talk) 09:35, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another question

[edit]

Hi Dénes, why have you removed a quality marker from one of your files, which clearly has a low quality? --Naschpaul (talk) 06:46, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Naschpaul: Hi, Yes I did that because I didn't know who was the/that anonym. Now I think you where. DenesFeri (talk) 10:29, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You should not think of this as an insult. Nearly all of your pictures have good quality, just those from Natural History Museum in London not.--Naschpaul (talk) 14:38, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Naschpaul: That's ok! No problem. DenesFeri (talk) 09:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

About the fish

[edit]

Hi,

Could this File:Hal - Aulonocara baenschi 1.jpg be Category:Neolamprologus brichardi? Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 08:33, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is Category:Neolamprologus pulcher because Neolamprologus brichardi is a synonym to Neolamprologus pulcher.

Regards,--Haplochromis (talk) 08:38, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, you don't really know? On base of this two Neolamprologus brichardi (Poll, 1974) FishBase and Neolamprologus pulcher (Trewavas & Poll, 1952) FishBase I vote for N. brichardi. The aquarium was quite small. DenesFeri (talk) 09:18, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neolamprologus brichardi and Neolamprologus pulcher are the same fish, the valid name ist Neolamprologus pulcher.--Haplochromis (talk) 09:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OHH! Thank you! Sorry I didn't understand it for the first time. :) Cheers. DenesFeri (talk) 10:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One more think: If the 2 names belong to the same fish, than why FishBase treats them as 2 separated species? And ich one has its own synonyms. DenesFeri (talk) 15:23, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fishbase is not always up to date, in the Catalog of Fishes, witch makes an update every Month, you can see that Neolamprologus brichardi ist synonym to Neolamprologus pulcher. --Haplochromis (talk) 15:27, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK; Thank you again! DenesFeri (talk) 08:54, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DenesFeri/Archív04&oldid=237301797"