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.
Thanks for uploading File:Atomic bomb explosion.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:Atomic bomb explosion.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.
Thanks for uploading File:AN602 dust formation.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:AN602 dust formation.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.
Thanks for uploading File:TsarBomba wolk1.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:TsarBomba wolk1.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.
Thanks for uploading File:Tsarbomba.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:Tsarbomba.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.
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!
Apologies for being so forthright as to entirely rebut your nomination, but I decided to take the liberty of negating the nomination on the grounds of your having not seen the licence descriptions refers to Article 1274, while your indicated complaint shown @ PD-RU-exempt shows article 1259, which indicated I can't possibly provide a defence to your identification of the problem, as you haven't identified a problem that is currently relevant to the files. Thank you though for your stalwart effort, should there be any other further critique, I hope to find this situation to our mutual advantage what-ever the outcome, regards 13:27, 12 June 2021 (UTC) minor correction after signature 13:28, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
I think probably File:Bomba=eM.jpg covers the need for a suitable file for the article which would make File:30-10-1961 bomba.webp surfeit of the same need, also the image being of an inferior quality to the former file, I agree it would be necessarily deleted, although for a different reason than Rubin16 had provided. Autonomous agent 5 (talk) 13:38, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Reality-unknown-video-still.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 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.
Thanks for uploading File:Reality-unknown-with clouded sky.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 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.
Thanks for uploading File:Microsoft Windows 11.jpg. 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 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.
Thanks for uploading File:Microsoft Windows 11.jpg. 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 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.
File:Microsoft Windows 11.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.)
This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: Non-free product image, already on relevant projects
Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
@EugeneZelenko: The file was deleted "F1. Apparent copyright violation Content is apparently a copyright violation, with no good evidence of Commons-compatible licensing being issued by the copyright holder or status as a free work." but you could see @ the file the same license in place as is @ the infobox image file @ Windows 11, as I've indicated with the bold-type. The deletion seems to therefore be an error, could you please clarify this situation?
The file in use in the infobox @ Windows 11 is a copyrighted image, and has a microsoft screenshow license: "This image is a copyrighted screenshot of a commercially released computer software product owned by Microsoft Corporation. Microsoft Corporation allows screenshots of its commercially released computer software products for use in advertising, documentations, educational materials, videos and web sites..." but @ WP:IUP#COPYRIGHT: "Note that images that are licensed for use only on Wikipedia, or only for non-commercial or educational use, or under a license that doesn't allow for the creation of modified/derived works, are unsuitable." indicates the infobox image file is "unsuitable"... , with regards, Autonomous agent 5 (talk) 22:00, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well actually I thought that was the case, considering the contradictory situation with the infobox image having the license there (I noticed after the comment here, that the infobox file was wikipedian) Autonomous agent 5 (talk) 00:21, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
File:Microsoft Windows 11.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.)
Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
Thanks for uploading File:Rutherford Scattering Chamber.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 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.
Thanks for uploading File:Bomba=eM.jpg. 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 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.
Thanks for uploading File:30-10-1961 bomba.webp. 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:30-10-1961 bomba.webp]]) and the above demanded information in your request.
Thanks for uploading File:AN602 dust formation.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:AN602 dust formation.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.
Thanks for uploading File:2020 aug26 hbomb.png. 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:2020 aug26 hbomb.png]]) and the above demanded information in your request.
Thanks for uploading File:TsarBomba wolk1.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:TsarBomba wolk1.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.
Thanks for uploading File:Bomba=eM.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:Bomba=eM.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.
Thanks for uploading File:Rutherford Scattering Chamber.png. 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:Rutherford Scattering Chamber.png]]) and the above demanded information in your request.
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!
That is a reason, yes, because EXIF data is important - but if the information is shown as "Date" but hours minutes seconds are not the date, but instead time not date - this would be a limitation on the including of the time, irrespective of the importance of the EXIF value, with regards, Agent: autonomous type (5) (version: prototype) (talk) 18:35, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you please: show where your adaption of the wikipedia consensus for Date being the direction by a policy decision is something that one editor alone could disagree with for his/her own opinion's dominance of the policy indication. I think it is necessary to therefore not include the time, unless there is a discussion on changing the "Date" indication which would faciltate a change to this, with regards, Agent: autonomous type (5) (version: prototype) (talk) 18:45, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is Commons, not Wikipedia. For at least 14 years, "Date" in the {{Information}} template has been able to includes formats such as "YYYY-MM-DD hh:mm:ss", and HAS DONE SO. Removing the time where is it exists is your preference, NOT NECESSARY and you are wasting your time. Again, please stop or be stopped. Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:50, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I see that you have stated correctly the situation, but Date doesn't indicate time of hh:mm:ss though of course I will be adhering to your indication to avoid conflict at this time and will proceed to revert my edits after this comm. is saved. Thank you for your timely intervention, with regards. Agent: autonomous type (5) (version: prototype) (talk) 19:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC) corr. after signature 19:04, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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!
If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.
In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!
Yes, I saw and read them, but that still doesn't tell me much about your rationale. Was it that the "rejected" images weren't red enough? There are a couple there clearly rendered reddish. I would suggest writing an actual statement at the top of the description page stating why images are placed in that category, something along the lines of:
* {{en|1=Images have been placed in this category because they do not depict its physical characteristics as described by researchers, such as ...}}
And fill in from there. Basically, write out the rationale in long for so that laymen can understand why the included images aren't properly representative.
That said, research I've read has described it as anywhere from "lightly red" and "slightly reddish hue" to "darkly red", so I'm concerned about excluding images simply because they aren't some rich red colour. I've also seen size estimates ranging down to 4:1, rather than 5:1. All I'm saying is, perhaps don't be overly aggressive in relegating artistic images based on very limited observations. Thanks. — Huntster (t@c)15:15, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No well I'm time pressured here so it may seem that I'm being agressive, but that isn't the case - and absolutely, I did think at the time, obviously, that having one source to represent the possibility of ranges of quantities (because who knows what is out there to know anything without an exhaustative effort) is not a sufficient proof - those were my reservations - except I am only a non professional, so Richmond "reddish" and Meech "red" sufficed, since the former cannot be in error since the data simply represents Masiero which is the input of light (taking into account any variations on truth value which are possible - the sources don't mention any, this doesn't indicate the non-existence of possible contraries to the data - but given the data was confirmed at Meech I accepted it as true) since you gave different estimations of the colour I would say this is obviously due to human-orign variations here on earth or from space, and not representative of the object - so red is simply all there is to conclude - without looking at the details as to the differences at sources (the causes of the differences, which is sometimes so annoying). I reviewed the few that looked red and they seem brown not red, while Tomruen-nagualdesign looked brown almost completely except for a slight red - obviously this indicates the rendering of Eso/Kornmesser is insufficiently realistic - better to have a range of possible (a surfeit) given the choices are limited. Please review for yourself scanning back and forward from one image to the other you will find only a slight difference (really nagualdesign doesn't show enough red, but I couldn't find a program online to remedy this - and all the others could be brought into service by this manner to show the ratio). Agent: autonomous type (5) (version: prototype) (talk) 15:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC) 15:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have time now to solve your indicated critique as i have a prioritized activity to fulfill in my private life, but I should be freed from this within 6 hours perhaps. Agent: autonomous type (5) (version: prototype) (talk) 15:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC) good talking (writing that is, as there is no sound on this page evidently) in any case. 15:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We're all volunteers here, so no worries. I'm at work myself and won't be able to re-engage till later tonight. Take care of yourself and your priorities, and have a good day. — Huntster (t@c)20:29, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So, I feel like the real question here is, what is "enough red"? I've found that when colours are stated for astronomical objects, they tend to be relatively subtle colours. Consider the colours of stars...colours are present, but are often so subtle as to be largely unnoticeable. So, when the experts say "reddish" or "red" are they saying blood red? More of a scarlet? Or is it something more like a red tinge to a rocky brown or gray? Nothing I've seen has given context to the colour. That they suggest it is organics lending the reddish colour strongly suggests to me that its going to be much less bold than File:Artist's impression of ʻOumuamua.jpg. All I'm saying is that the "falsely rendered" images probably shouldn't be excluded simply on the basis of not being a bold-enough colour. — Huntster (t@c)02:15, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The reality is that it is a rock therefore the colour is presumed from iron oxide (by me at least, erroneously perhaps) and so the range of colours for an integral astronomical body with a certain amount of iron where the amalgam of chemicals are that the rock is intact in space during the transition to this stellar system, is a certain possible proportion given the known elements here on Earth, excluding the possibility of a currently unknown mineral (element) that could constitute the body which would change the analysis results. Looking at rocks here on Earth would give a reasonable comparison to colour given all rocks in the universe are subject to the (presumed) same universal forces during formation; planetary bodies which are the presumed first cause for the rocks formation contain rocks from certain processes (excluding the possobility again of unknown elements which could be at the origin on an exoplanet. Certain reds exist naturally where the colours cannot be found in nature in other aspects of nature (c.f. autumn leaves - blood - blushing faces - chameleons - fruit - rocks - sunsets (hope I didn't leave anyone out of the list! Apologies if I did). (That's my presumption). The scientific causes are known for colors. Agent: autonomous type (5) (version: prototype) (talk) 16:39, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It entirely depends on the source of the colour and the concentration of said source. Take Pluto, for instance. Its reddish surface is believed to be caused by tholins, which are an organic compound. Its surface ranges from very light to very dark (in enhanced colours, mind you) due to differing concentrations. Who's to say the same could not be said for Oumuamua? The cause could be organics, or it could be something else, and we don't know the concentrations. The point is you're making assumptions when the variables are unknown. — Huntster (t@c)18:15, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I digressed away from the response to the "organic" factor in the previous, actually. I didn't see any sources showing this, I don't think it is possible because if it were a type of mould or growth on the rock surface, this would need moisture to survive (presumably) + there aren't any conditions where growth would occur as the rock had no atmosphere for growth to occur under. Those sources were therefore erroneous, unless you could show the sources, I couldn't possibly provide a reply. Agent: autonomous type (5) (version: prototype) (talk) 21:04, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a thought, and I know it isn't very scientific but there isn't any actual information to provide a scientific response...If God were the Universe (let's accept that Genesis is the true story of the Universe's creation and God created Satan (who is a red colour) then 1I/Oumuamua is Satan (because 1I/Oumuamua is a red colour)...we should be grateful that Satan has visited us here on Earth because in the realm of hell Satan is the least bad and evil because he is closest to God (since he was before an angel), and all the other inhabitants (daemons) of hell (that is the Universe outside of Earth) they become more bad the further away from Satan they are in hell. And the Universe is like a river where the current is very strong and we are just one man (or woman) being pushed along in the current (like a ship sailing along the water - or twigs or branches floating on the River Styx)) where there is only an occasional rock or island in the river for us to stop on until we reach waterfall. This is like the story of adam and eve where earth is the garden of eden and the universe is (well hellish) - the waterfall is the fall from grace - and practically the fall from the waterfall is into a calm place where we have the opportunity to swim to the embankment and make dry land (would be an exoplanet where we could stop and maybe find a life). The Universe is like a place where Americans have lit a cigarette (because tobacco is from America) and where they find a place to stop is where they stub out their cigarette and drop the butt (their own butts that is) where they sit down (they sat down in the world of satan let's say) (it is an American concern, practically and realistically, (since they are the most advanced culture with regards to space exploration). So firstly, there is no way to know the colour, and that is good thing, and secondarily, the colour is just a cigarette that is a lit cigarette - let's therefore think that the colour is a slightly orange hue of red (for the sake of the analogy here) plus the shape is long and thin, coincidentally. There is no way to know the colour, only to guess the colour, scientifically, because there is insufficient data to form a certain response to the query. I can't venture out to look at the papers right now because although they might show relevant information, they also aren't provable as the truth, so it is futile to consider the evidence, since there is no way to attach the evidence to the problem. 1I/Oumuamua is an object of kismet (that kissed our planet and briefly met us here, and will never return) - that is all I know. Just a detail of fate in a Universe of laws of nature where we are also creatures of nature. The answer to this query I think is - cities provide the answer to many things - but 1I/Oumuamua is a multistory block of flats or a skyscraper in a concern that is only and actually something of nature (1I is redwood then somewhere in America, where someone is standing looking - to find they cannot know the color either - although someone has described to them it is a red thing - the mystery remains). The solution would be to provide an exhaustative number of realistically red objects with a range of possible shapes - and people could just select some they prefer - one of which might be close to the actual shape and colour - by the laws of probability - if there were enough imaginatively made versions of a possible. Agent: autonomous type (5) (version: prototype) (talk) 09:07, 2 December 2022 (UTC) 09:09, 2 December 2022 (UTC)~[reply]
09:30 ← If I can beat this addiction! - and the answer is - because I beat it I am gone - because better to have never first ever met the dragon. By the time you beat the dragon you are already gone (all - reddy). Because the problem is a beta problem when what you and I need is the alpha state.Agent: autonomous type (5) (version: prototype) (talk) 10:03, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If I were standing on the moon looking at the Earth I would be a cave man looking through the cave door at a view of the ocean. That is how much information I practically have on this problem. If time were an ocean i still wouldn't know the answer with all the time on earth. Agent: autonomous type (5) (version: prototype) (talk) 10:33, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is abc (for easy like abc) - First Jesus ascended into the clouds to be "seated at the right hand of the father" (Gagarin) - then Neil before God (Jesus was the son of God). Then, next, Branson and Bezos (two types of bees), that is from our view from our new home, the cave. Then C for Cave (where we now live). D is difficult (for dead i suppose) E is our cremations (for energy) - because Mars is red (like a painting on the wall, which is the hand of a murderous cave man, or the blood of his pray. I thought we all knew that, as humans, that is. Agent: autonomous type (5) (version: prototype) (talk) 10:54, 2 December 2022 (UTC) Should we ever get to the red planet, that is. To find the Milky way (domestication of cows I suppose) our next destination. Really the outcome is the same for whatever time or place - which is dead for all of eternity - whichever human face should it be - that should bravely go to the future. Since we are all mortals in-fin-nite universe (an end like the night forever (in the language of someone from America or England (or French perhaps)), should we ever get there - I sit here waiting patiently, for our leaders... (like a hospitality patient, for the day to arrive, I'm supposing). Agent: autonomous type (5) (version: prototype) (talk) 11:14, 2 December 2022 (UTC) For that brave knight, wearing his suit, in space - in a new feudal society (in a beater state - victorious at last - for ever and ever Amen ...a males) - where the outcome is the same for all eternity in-any-case for those in the alpha state, which is conventionally known as civilization. Truthfully, and forever. Agent: autonomous type (5) (version: prototype) (talk) 11:18, 2 December 2022 (UTC) yeah, Helen Earth. I think that is the answer to the question. Ewe? (sheeping). viz. 11:14 here waiting for our heroes - with a monastic order and the reminants of Plato...for eternity's door to open. Agent: autonomous type (5) (version: prototype) (talk) 11:39, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First steps tutorial
Getting help
Goodies, tips, and tricks
Made a mistake?
_Reality-unknown_with_cloud_(ii)_detail_of_functioning_of_video_play_function.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
