Talk:Ernophthora schematica

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ernophthora schematica. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006084857/http://globiz.pyraloidea.org/Pages/Reports/TaxonReport.aspx to http://globiz.pyraloidea.org/Pages/Reports/TaxonReport.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Image removal

I took the time to locate an image that suited this article very specifically. I gave all the right answers on the file as to why this image is the only option in order to place an image on the article about a living creature. They are rare and rarely photographed. The website I retrieved this image from is fully documented in the file description. This file is not "nonfree". It is clearly stated in the description that it is free -- for noncommercial use. Wikipedia does not charge a fee to look at the articles and the website freely offers the image.

Before you come here and remove this image from the article, please be courteous enough to contact me first. I've returned to the fold after a two year hiatus and I should be here long enough to defend this file. I've seen much no, never mind. AGF applies here, and it was a bot that did this, so hopefully we've seen the end of it.

Thank you for your consideration.  — Myk Streja ^(beep) 19:12, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

@Myk Streja:, unfortunately, Wikipedia doesn't allow files that have a noncommercial use restriction. Plantdrew (talk) 20:04, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

@Plantdrew:, see, this is where we diverge. The file has no restrictions for noncommercial use. It does have a commercial use restriction. I double-checked WP:NFC, and this file is covered on all bases. This is according to black-letter policy. I am not trying to slide by in any fashion. The chances of someone going into the Australian bush and snapping a picture that they will then just give to Wikipedia are vanishingly small. And the subject is elusive enough that there is not an abundance of files to choose from. In fact, the only other images of this moth are on the same page as this one. The article is enormously improved with an image. At this point, I'm tempted to become dramatic, so I'll finish this here.

Just tell me this: based on what I've told you, what image of this rare creature would you find acceptable?

P.S. The file has been accepted by Wikipedia, provided it appears in an article, based on fairuse. It became threatened only because a bot orphaned it by removing it from the article it was used in.  — Myk Streja ^(beep) 20:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I phrased that poorly. The Creative Commons license condition is NC, but that means noncommercial use is allowed. and commercial use is not. NC is not compatible with what Wikipedia considers to be a free image. The photo may be allowed under fairuse, as you are aware. Plantdrew (talk) 21:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I tried, but it looks like humans have given up running Wikipedia and dry precedent and bots have it now. I did my bit, I still think this is wrong, but it takes one bot on a tear to destroy an editor's efforts. Why even have a copyright template that applies to this file if Wikipedia won't honor it. Shame.  — Myk Streja ^(beep) 02:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)