User talk:Yzx

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Yzx!
Afrikaans | Alemannisch | asturianu | azərbaycanca | Bahasa Banjar | català | čeština | Cymraeg | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | español | Esperanto | euskara | estremeñu | français | Frysk | galego | hrvatski | Bahasa Indonesia | interlingua | Interlingue | íslenska | italiano | Kiswahili | Kurdî | Latina | lietuvių | magyar | Bahasa Melayu | Mirandés | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | occitan | Plattdüütsch | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | rumantsch | Scots | shqip | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | Basa Sunda | suomi | svenska | Tagalog | Türkçe | vèneto | Tiếng Việt | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | беларуская | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | Ирон | македонски | нохчийн | русский | српски / srpski | тоҷикӣ | українська | ქართული | Հայերեն | नेपाली | भोजपुरी | मराठी | हिन्दी | অসমীয়া | বাংলা | தமிழ் | മലയാളം | සිංහල | ไทย | ၽႃႇသႃႇတႆး  | မြန်မာဘာသာ | 한국어 | 日本語 | 中文 | 中文(台灣)‎ | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | 粵語 | עברית | اردو | العربية | تۆرکجه | سنڌي | فارسی | +/−

dansk  italiano  sicilianu  Deutsch  català  magyar  čeština  português do Brasil  Esperanto  español  português  English  hrvatski  français  Nederlands  Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎  norsk nynorsk  polski  galego  íslenska  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  Türkçe  Ελληνικά  беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  български  македонски  русский  українська  മലയാളം  日本語  中文(简体)‎  中文(繁體)‎  فارسی  +/−


There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 06:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Would you please be able to drop some notes onto the talk page of this file about the renaming and the pertinent information for the reidentification, so that others will be able to understand has occurred when we start to delink the photo from their pages. Once you have completed that, we can then rename the file. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated the file for speedy deletion. It was unfortunate (unlucky) you found the image uploaded by a "washer". Jappalang (talk) 03:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pay attention to copyright
File:Carcharhinus leucas.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. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.

The file you added may soon be deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please replace the copyvio tag with {{subst:OP}} and have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you disagree that the file is a copyright violation for any other reason, please replace the copyvio tag with a regular deletion request.

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

Afrikaans  asturianu  azərbaycanca  Bahasa Indonesia  Bahasa Melayu  català  čeština  dansk  Deutsch  Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎  English  español  euskara  français  galego  hrvatski  italiano  Lëtzebuergesch  magyar  Malti  Nederlands  norsk bokmål  norsk nynorsk  oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча  Plattdüütsch  polski  português  português do Brasil  română  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  Türkçe  Tiếng Việt  Zazaki  Ελληνικά  беларуская беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  български  македонски  русский  српски / srpski  тоҷикӣ  українська  հայերեն  मराठी  বাংলা  മലയാളം  ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ  မြန်မာဘာသာ  ไทย  한국어  日本語  中文(简体)‎  中文(繁體)‎  עברית  العربية  فارسی  +/−

--Túrelio (talk) 06:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

skate[edit]

Hi Yzx,

This File:Hal - Urobatis sp. - GMZ 1.jpg might could be Raja clavata? Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 07:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, though honestly without knowing what the back looks like it'd probably be impossible to identify to species. -- Yzx (talk) 07:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And this File:Hal - Urobatis sp. - GMZ 2.jpg might be Scyliorhinus canicula? DenesFeri (talk) 07:51, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, not enough visible information to be sure, though I'd guess S. canicula just because it's the most common European catshark. -- Yzx (talk) 07:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks! DenesFeri (talk) 13:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
About [1]:
As you can see in Category:Dasyatis dipterura and Category:Dasyatis brevis, both species are recognized by FishBase & ITIS & WoRMS. Only IUCN says that further studies are needed (en has a redirect from both species to en:Diamond stingray but without explaination).
So I quite sure we should follow FishBase and avoid merging both categories.
Best regards, Liné1 (talk) 10:34, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should trust primary/secondary sources rather than online databases, which only aggregate data from elsewhere and are not any kind of taxonomic authority (so they can't 'recognize' something or not), not to mention that they are frequently out of date/contain remnant obsolete entries. Here are some better sources stating the synonymy of D. brevis with D. dipterura:
  • Nelson (2004) Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States, Canada, and Mexico
  • Smith, W. D., Cailliet, G. M., & Melendez, E. M. (2007). Maturity and growth characteristics of a commercially exploited stingray, Dasyatis dipterura. Marine and Freshwater Research, 58(1), 54-66.
  • IUCN -- IUCN actually states unambiguously that D. brevis is synonymous with D. dipterura, and also gives an account of why D. brevis is often mistakenly used instead of/in addition to D. dipterura
  • Ebert, D. Sharks, rays, and chimaeras of California -- also describes how D. brevis became inappropriately used instead of/in addition to D. dipterura.
As you can see, D. brevis is clearly synonymous with D. dipterura, and the origin of the taxonomic confusion has been traced in some detail. -- Yzx (talk) 21:59, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:Alopias vulpinus swfsc 2.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!

   FDMS  4    19:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Urolophus circularis by clay bryce.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!

136.154.23.253 07:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 was probably deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Silky shark makunudhoo.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).

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Silky shark makunudhoo.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

Smooth O (talk) 19:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, 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!

Affected:


Yours sincerely, BevinKacon (talk) 11:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]