User talk:Amirani1746
Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki. More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump. |
|
-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 05:47, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Revision warring
[edit]Hi, instead of edit warring, you should suggest how to improve said images. I've already explained why the old version is unlikely. So you should suggest what modifications you want, because those visible incisors and postcanines are not likely. FunkMonk (talk) 16:33, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- There is problems the picture of the image of inostrancevia that you made, here are the faults:
- We see the traces of the teeth on the side and the premaxilla (which are supposed to be closed)
- The fact that you have removed the gray background and the hair which gives a "mammalian" aspect to the creature frustrates me enormously (without giving full fur either)...
- The front of the jaw should have a sort of curve similar to the previous version
- If you fill in all those flaws and make a more satisfying picture of Inostrancevia latifrons, I'd be willing to leave that picture alone. Amirani1746 (talk) 16:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- In any case, edit warring before discussing is not acceptable. A way of finding a solution could be to post this and other such pictures at the image-review page. I have done these edits to prevent other editors from removing the drawings for their inaccuracies, so you're not helping their case by knee-jerk reversion, it will only get the images excluded for good. Note I have even re-added canines in some images were they were removed, so you should be happy someone is trying to make a compromise.
- It seems you are ignoring what I wrote on my talk page, so I'll repeat it again, with other comments:
- What you're seeing are the lower incisors, because the mouth isn't fully closed. Even in the original image, it's clear the mouth isn't fully closed (notice the gap between the jaws along their length), so the teeth,including the postcanines behind the canine, would be visible between the lips.
- The background should be white so the image can be used on white backgrounds without a frame, and there is little reason to think gorgonopsians had any hair, so they should at least not be shown as overly hairy as a compromise. What you personally feel doesn't trump probability.
- The contour of the upper lip would not follow the curve of the jaw when covered in flesh that encase the incisors, look at practically any modern animal for comparison. You are arguing for extreme "shrink-wrapping" of fleshy features, and features not seen in any known animals, but which are tropes in paleoart. FunkMonk (talk) 22:50, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- Can you still leave the moose hair on the white background? Amirani1746 (talk) 10:16, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Moose hair? What's that? You need to remember that the reason why they are even shown with whiskers is because some pits in the snout were interpreted as indications of this. If they had hair for sensing, it doesn't really make sense they would have randomly scattered hair of no function elsewhere on the body. But that's also why I've left in the hairs around the snout, because they are whiskers. FunkMonk (talk) 17:22, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Ah ok, now i got it, but can you still repeat the incisor traces on the premaxilla? Amirani1746 (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- to erase sorry Amirani1746 (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- You mean the lines on the upper lip? FunkMonk (talk) 16:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- Exactly. Amirani1746 (talk) 16:17, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- Now erased the lines, but notice they were meant as wrinkles, because even the original version has wrinkles on the front of the upper lip, they were just meant to be a continuation of that. FunkMonk (talk) 17:25, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- Technically I think it's ok, I still prefer the original, of course, but considering all the new submissions, it's okay until proven otherwise. See you later Amirani1746 (talk) 17:51, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- Cool, yes, I don't have a big problem with the originals, but we're not the only ones who have a say, and it seems many others would have covered all the teeth, so this is the best we can do if we wan to keep the images with at least the canines showing. FunkMonk (talk) 20:59, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- Finally, after thinking, I thought and I prefer the old version you made, the eye of the animal is too small compared to the orbital cavity. Amirani1746 (talk) 13:48, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- The orbital cavity is not what determines the size of the visible eye, the inner diameter of the sclerotic ring is. Large gorgonopsians had pretty small sclerotic rings, see for example:[1] In fact, the eye is probably still too large in my new version. Only small ones like Viatkogorgon appear to have had large eyes. FunkMonk (talk) 14:39, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Finally, after thinking, I thought and I prefer the old version you made, the eye of the animal is too small compared to the orbital cavity. Amirani1746 (talk) 13:48, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Cool, yes, I don't have a big problem with the originals, but we're not the only ones who have a say, and it seems many others would have covered all the teeth, so this is the best we can do if we wan to keep the images with at least the canines showing. FunkMonk (talk) 20:59, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- Technically I think it's ok, I still prefer the original, of course, but considering all the new submissions, it's okay until proven otherwise. See you later Amirani1746 (talk) 17:51, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- Now erased the lines, but notice they were meant as wrinkles, because even the original version has wrinkles on the front of the upper lip, they were just meant to be a continuation of that. FunkMonk (talk) 17:25, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- Exactly. Amirani1746 (talk) 16:17, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- You mean the lines on the upper lip? FunkMonk (talk) 16:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- Ah ok, now i got it, but can you still repeat the incisor traces on the premaxilla? Amirani1746 (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Moose hair? What's that? You need to remember that the reason why they are even shown with whiskers is because some pits in the snout were interpreted as indications of this. If they had hair for sensing, it doesn't really make sense they would have randomly scattered hair of no function elsewhere on the body. But that's also why I've left in the hairs around the snout, because they are whiskers. FunkMonk (talk) 17:22, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
File:Synapsid diversity 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. |
Kent G. Budge (talk) 15:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Copyright status: File:Tulerpeton limb.png
[edit]Copyright status: File:Tulerpeton limb.png
This media may be deleted. |
Thanks for uploading File:Tulerpeton limb.png. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.
If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you. |
Yours sincerely, Yann (talk) 19:41, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Crops with down-scaling
[edit]Hi,
I've noticed you're overwriting images with crop, but also with a significant down-scale. The down-scale should be avoided. In this picture
besdies the crop was made, you've also downsized image from 2,800 × 2,100
to 726 × 441
.
Please be careful while performing COM:OVERWRITE. VoidWanderer (talk) 10:41, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
File:Thalattoarchon saurophagis skull reconstruction.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 has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.)
|
FunkMonk (talk) 20:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
File:Thalattoarchon saurophagis holotype skull.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 has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.)
|
FunkMonk (talk) 20:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
File:Thalattoarchon saurophagis skull reconstruction.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. |
Yann (talk) 19:20, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
File:Thalattoarchon saurophagis holotype skull.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. |