File talk:Cheljabinsk meteorite fragment.jpg

  Warum soll die Datei gelöscht werden? Es handelt sich um ein selbst aufgenommenes Foto, sämtliche Bildrechte liegen bei mir (Meteorite Recon, www.meteorite-recon.com).

Ich dachte das wäre in Russland. Wie bist du denn da dran gekommen? Aber im Ernst, da du offenbar eher professionelle Fotos hochlädst, wäre es vielleicht besser (und würde dir und uns Zeit wegen solcher Nachfragen ersparen), wenn du eine Genehmigung/Bestätigung an OTRS (permissions-commons-de@wikimedia.org) schicken würdest. OTRS könnte dann für all deine Uploads ein einziges Ticket einrichten und die Sache wäre erledigt. Nur mal so als Vorschlag. --Túrelio (talk) 10:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Natürlich hat sich der Fall in Russland ereignet, Fragmente werden allerdings bereits seit dem Tag des Falles gehandelt. Danke für den Tip mit OTRS, ich kannte diese Möglichkeit noch gar nicht. Gibt es dafür ein Formblatt bzw. welche Angaben sind erforderlich? Dank im Voraus! Meteorite Recon, 18:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Der Ablauf und Hintergrund ist hier Commons:OTRS/de beschrieben; eine Vorlage findest du hier. Allerdings musst du sie etwas anpassen, sofern du sie für alle Uploads unter deinem Accountnamen benutzen willst. Der Inhalt deiner Email wird nicht veröffentlicht und kann nur von OTRS-Mitarbeitern eingesehen werden. --Túrelio (talk) 19:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• Меня интересует гарантия того, что изображен действительно метеорит, а не подделка. Подлинность метеорита вообще-то устанавливается специальным исследованием. Случаи мошенничества с поддельными осколками уже были: [1].--T-piston (talk) 12:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
• Google translate:) I am interested in a guarantee that really shows the meteorite and not a fake. The authenticity of the meteorite actually established a special investigation. Fraud with fake fragments were: [2].--T-piston (talk) 12:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

At present the meteorite’s name and classification is pending. It is clear that the Vernadsky Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences is working on the material. Even by international standards their experts are among the best in this field, and the team working on the classification has my full trust that they will provide us with the results when available. It has not become public yet, whether the submission to the Nomenclature Committee of the Meteoritical Society has been completed yet. Elemental and trace elemental composition has not been published yet either. Thus, at present the meteorite is not officially recognized nor is there any chemical data to compare. However, the Vernadsky Institute has already published preliminary classification results which describe Chelyabinsk as an ordinary chondrite of the petrologic type 5 with a shock level of S4 and a weathering grade of W0 (as can be expected with an observed fall). The picture of the sample in question is of sufficient quality to determine low metal (L or LL) chondritic composition as well as distinct shock features (such as brecciation, shock veining, planar fractures and impact melt pockets) in accordance to a shock level of 4. The same goes for a weathering grade of zero (lowest oxidation level of NiFe in the meteorite). So in terms of authenticity the picture speaks for itself so to say. Unfortunately, when a meteorite fall occurs, the finders don’t pick them up with a certificate of authenticity sticking to them. Therefore, perhaps a few more words on pairing and designation of samples from the recent fall and meteorites in general are appropriate: The Chelyabinsk (or Cherbakul) meteorite has produced a shower of fragments which were distributed along an axis of at least 40 kilometers. Until February 19 alone, more than several hundred fragments were found. As with other multiple meteorite falls of the recent past (e.g.Tamdakht, Bassikounou, Buzzard Coulee or Sutters Mill) the scientific work is done on a handful of representative type specimens only (referring to the “special investigation” mentioned in the question above). The vast majority of the material recovered from the strewnfield is paired on optical/physical properties and the data on the find location alone. Once the chemical and petrologic composition has been determined and deposit material is available for further scientific study, there is no need to destroy further samples for thin slide production, microprobing or isotopic analysis, just for comparing them to each other. Chelyabinsk makes no exception. Meteorite Recon (talk) 17:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Сonvincingly--T-piston (talk) 03:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)