Commons:Deletion requests/File:Blakey 20moll.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Also
- File:Blakey_35moll.jpg
- File:Blakey_50moll.jpg
- File:Blakey_65moll.jpg
- File:Blakey_90moll.jpg
- File:Blakey_105moll.jpg
- File:Blakey_120moll.jpg
- File:Blakey_150moll.jpg
- File:Blakey_170moll.jpg
- File:Blakey_200moll.jpg
- File:Blakey_220moll.jpg
- File:Blakey_240moll.jpg
- File:Blakey_260moll.jpg
- File:Blakey_280moll.jpg
- File:Blakey_300moll.jpg
- File:Blakey_340moll.jpg
- File:Blakey_370moll.jpg
- File:Blakey_400moll.jpg
- File:Blakey_430moll.jpg
- File:Blakey_450moll.jpg
- File:Blakey_470moll.jpg
- File:Blakey_500moll.jpg
- File:Blakey_540moll.jpg
- File:Blakey_560moll.jpg
- File:Blakey_600moll.jpg
- File:Blakey_Pleistmoll.jpg
- File:Blakey_presentmoll.jpg
Possible invalid OTRS ticket Ronhjones (Talk) 22:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- OK, not an easy one and due to a lot of OTRS stuff details here will be limited. Ticket 2012111610010344 has the permission. Ticket 2015020710010999 complains that the copyright has been violated.
- It does seem to me that the author Ron Blakey thought that he was given permission for non-commercial, which is mentioned several times in 2012111610010344. There is a forwarded e-mail from him where he used a one line permission which was suggested to him by the Original Poster :-"I release the Mollewide Plate Tectonic Maps found at http://cpgeosystems.com/mollglobe.html under GFDL and CC-BY-SA 3.0 Unported.", nowhere does he acknowledge that he understands that this will be commercial - when another e-mail was sent to him with our standard pre-filled in consent form for him to send back, no reply was ever received. As far as I can see we have never received any e-mail direct from Ron Blakey. Ronhjones (Talk) 22:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- I also note that there is an older ticket 2008042810027415 where the OTRS ticket was bogus - see Commons:Deletion_requests/File:LatePermianGlobal.jpg - again when asked, Ron Blakey never replied. So I cannot be sure if the e-mail address we see is even valid. Ronhjones (Talk) 22:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- This seems to come up and go away on a regular basis with these maps. I thought a previous deletion request resolved it. I can't see the OTRS tickets, but maybe there's something in #2012062510008957 for File:Afrotarsiidae comparison & biogeography.jpg. I know this derivative was nominated for deletion once because of Blakey's maps, but then things got cleared up. <sigh> ... I just wish someone would explain to Blakey that he's not likely to make any money off these maps and that non-commercial licenses only hurt the sharing of science. – Maky « talk » 07:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- There is nothing in 2012062510008957 from Ron Blakey - that ticket just covers the items on top of the map, the map being allegedly CC-BY-SA already (in fact as I said above, we have never actually received an e-mail direct from him). Ronhjones (Talk) 21:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- This seems to come up and go away on a regular basis with these maps. I thought a previous deletion request resolved it. I can't see the OTRS tickets, but maybe there's something in #2012062510008957 for File:Afrotarsiidae comparison & biogeography.jpg. I know this derivative was nominated for deletion once because of Blakey's maps, but then things got cleared up. <sigh> ... I just wish someone would explain to Blakey that he's not likely to make any money off these maps and that non-commercial licenses only hurt the sharing of science. – Maky « talk » 07:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- I also note that there is an older ticket 2008042810027415 where the OTRS ticket was bogus - see Commons:Deletion_requests/File:LatePermianGlobal.jpg - again when asked, Ron Blakey never replied. So I cannot be sure if the e-mail address we see is even valid. Ronhjones (Talk) 22:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- Delete The critical issue is whether the 2012 email discussions at #2012111610010344 resulted in a valid release being given. The November 2012 email that is being relied on is a one-liner which 'approves' a CC licence using the exact words that were suggested by the agent. But there is previous correspondence which to my mind makes it obvious that the person sending that email did not understand the consequences of what would have to be agreed to. I do not think there has ever been informed consent. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom and Michael Maggs. INeverCry 01:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)