Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2007-02

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

2007-02[edit]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Pls. Restore Avellaneda-BsAs(Prov)-Logo.gif[edit]

This Image happens to be the Coat of Arms, albeit designed 2005 in form of a contemporary logo, of the Partido (Department) of Avellaneda in the Province of Buenos Aires (AR). It can therefore be used like any other coat of arms of any Argentine city. Cheers, OA. OAlexander 06:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Restore Image:Andy erotic 012.jpg[edit]

Commons destroys an german article, this picture has a specific function and shows us, the meaning of "Feigenblatt" in the article (its a bad picture with a special function). Please put it in back in the Commons or in the German Wikipedia. Thanks.

I restored the picture, but it is only a small copy from Google cache. Now it is deleted again, because the picture is too small. If its to small I need the old deleted one back. -- Hans Bug 21:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image was added to the article by Benutzer:Nihil Kainer, a blocked sockpuppet of Benutzer:Hans Bug (whom also is permanently blocked).
Why do you want the image restored? You are blocked, so you can not put it back into the article. Kjetil_r 21:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

PLEASE RESTORE Image:Tri-colored_Brittany.jpg|thumb| A tri-coloured Brittany[edit]

I am the photographer, I am the source, I am the author, and I thought that I typed or selected these descriptions when I uploaded the file months ago. Please restore the image and let me know if there is anything more that I can do. Marycontrary 15:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted. Please add a license - that's all that was missing. --Davepape 15:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restore SCO and AU logos and flags[edit]

EPO deleted these pics:

There is no reason given for the deletions. There was no prior discussion or even notice about that. For whatever reason the deletions itself do not appear in EPO's user contributions, but in respect of the SCP logo, the deletion was stored here. The issue of International Organizations' logos and flags in the Wikipedia has already been discussed numerous times, e.g. here. IMHO EPO's behavior has to be labelled vandalism. Please restore the pics. Henning Blatt 13:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions do not appear in an admin's contributions list, but they do appear in the deletion log. The deletion log for SCO logo.jpg gives "copyvio" as the reason, which is reasonable because logos are copyrighted images and are not allowed on Commons. The logs for Logo of the African Union.svg and Flag of the African Union.svg show that both were deleted for not having source information. All three images were tagged properly and for a sufficient amount of time before being deleted, and none was tagged by the admin who ultimately deleted them. In all three cases the uploaders were given warnings that the images had been tagged for speedy deletion. These were perfectly legitimate, by-the-book deletions, not "vandalism" by any means. —Angr 23:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Restore Image:Egypt-Esna-Old-Dam.jpg[edit]

Please restore Egypt-Esna-Old-Dam.jpg.

I am the photographer of this picture and I want this picture to be CC.

DMY 16:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

restored, please add the CC-license you want to release it under to the image page. --Matt314 18:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Biondi.Leshan.big.jpg[edit]

This photo belongs to me, I took it in july 2006 in Leshan, Sichuan, China and I have uploaded it with the correct copyright permission. Can't understand why it has been deleted. Can you please undelete it? Many thanks from the italian writer Mario Biondi --Baburkhan 16:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The picture has been deleted because commercial use was not allowed. Please see acceptable licenses, I you want to release the image under such license (like {{Cc-by-sa-2.5}}) the image can be restored. --Matt314 18:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restore some images of FML[edit]

Please, restore the image Image:Cat black 8272162434.jpg and Image:Não morda os novatos.png, because it WAS used on this Wikipedia project page: [1].

Restore too, please: Image:Vbjkhsdfwkueyew0170.JPG, Image:Xcvhjewkrjei0056.JPG and Image:Xcvhjewkrjei0074.jpg because don't have any good arguments to delete.

And please, if is possible, try restore anything here: Commons:Deletion requests/Some images of User:FML#My POV and defense (by FML), reading my argument, please.

Thank you. FML hello 01:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restore Image:Brabantse Partij logo.jpg[edit]

Please restore this image of this regional Dutch political party. The reason for deletion was copyvio(?). I have permission from party leader. cheers, JosN 18:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide evidence of permissions to permissions-commons (a) wikimedia.org. Thanks. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass demandez 03:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Kirschner-genealogic-map-de.png and Image:Kirschner-genealogic-map-at.png[edit]

Please restore them. The comment in the deletionlog was NC. But it was relicensed as cc-by-sa, after i got the permission from the owner. The new license was changed by me including the copy of the permission send to me by eMail, as already told. Thanks. --Q1712 18:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC) P.S.: The deletion was a fault, as all of this images where deleted (on the owners homepage theres only a nc-licence) and the admin of cause didn't check all of them for spechial permission. --Q1712 18:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please forward the e-mail to Commons:OTRS on permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, and they will be undeleted. -- Bryan (talk to me) 14:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done, Images restored as valid permission for CC-BY-SA-2.0-DE is now given. Arnomane 17:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mohenjodaro_computergeneratedimage1.jpg[edit]

Kindly undelete the picture that depicted Computer Generated Reconstruction of Moen Jo Daro on the page Mohenjo-daro. Aursani 18:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image of unknown source and licensing. Unless an acceptable license can be found, this image will stay deleted. -- Bryan (talk to me) 14:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images of Category:Jogo da vida[edit]

These pictures are the same case of all photos on Category:McDonald's and others like it. The photos was deleted WITHOUT any votation or explanation and the photos DON'T are copyvio, because it's on high 3D perspective and any copyrighted symbol CAN'T to be restored on a possible derivated image. Thank you very much. --FML hello 00:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All your files are deleted because the Commons:Derivative works and the files in Category:McDonald's are here because the Commons:Freedom of panorama. Please read carefully these two pages before replying this. Lugusto • ҉ 02:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Lugusto (my big personal enemy on PT.WP, only to let all very clear), you really saw these images? Specially the labeled with "(???)" above? I know the rules, or otherside I didn't will sent these images. --FML hello 03:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And, see Category:McDonald's again, please. What's the difference of Image:Chicken McNuggets.jpg and Image:Antiga_caixa_do_Jogo_da_Vida.jpg, for example? Both cases are impossible to anybody request any possible copyright rights. Some case of Image:McFlurry.jpg, Image:SGMcD.JPG. --FML hello 04:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(ignoring paranoic sayings), now I'm adding {{Derivative}} to Image:McFlurry.jpg and Image:Chicken McNuggets.jpg, thanks for your report. Lugusto • ҉ 08:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The solution now is erase all? Please, so, delete it too: Category:Printers and all sub-elements, or restore my photos. --FML hello 17:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ro-journ-iraq-kidnapped.png[edit]

Don't actually want this undeleted, I just want to know:

  • if the page said anything about the image whatsoever, So I can go looking for the uploader
  • who uploaded it

Bawolff 03:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Uploaded by Romihaitza (talk · contribs)
  • It showed three romanian journalist kidnapped in Iraq
  • License was falsely assumed PD, no source given.

Hope this helps, -- Bryan (talk to me) 15:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Bawolff 01:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:SMS message on a Nokia phone.jpeg[edit]

Could you tell me the same as above please. Bawolff 04:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's source was "It's from stock.xchng." and it was tagged with "CopyrightedFreeUse". / Fred Chess 16:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou. Bawolff 04:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Chicken McNuggets.jpg[edit]

I don't understand why this was deleted as a derivative work (especially when other images including copyrighted logos and packagings, such as Image:IBM Thinkpad R51.jpg, Image:Lindt Packaging.jpg, and Image:IPod-Nano-package.jpg, seem to be perfectly fine), and the editor who tagged it as such can't explain it to me, either... Judging from the discussion above it was tagged to support a dubious claim in a different case. Looking for previous discussion on the topic, all I could find was this, which says that it's okay to have such pictures. --Fritz Saalfeld 11:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Agree like Image:Antiga_caixa_do_Jogo_da_Vida.jpg, Image:Jogo_da_Vida_(tabuleiro).jpg, Image:Detalhe_lacunas_jogo_da_vida.jpg, Image:Jogo_da_vida_animacao.gif, Image:Roleta_jogo_da_vida.jpg, Image:Numeros_do_jogo_da_vida.jpg, Image:Jogo da vida Notas.jpg, Image:Jogo da vida notas especiais.jpg, Image:Cartoes de riqueza jogo da vida.jpg, Image:Carrinhos_e_pininhos_jogo_da_vida.jpg. Really no problem with all these images, and all are really free. FML hello 18:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Ayrton_senna_capacete.jpg[edit]

No good reason for delete. FML hello 19:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't see a valid reason for the speedy delete. But I think we should wait for the deleting admin to have his say. / Fred Chess 20:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no firm knowledge of this but I think it was because of all the logos in the helmet that made User:¬ mark it as {{Derivative}}. See also this edit. Samulili 12:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, restored anyways. / Fred Chess 16:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:RAID ant and roach.jpg[edit]

See above for other images deleted pointlessly as "derivative". A can of spray insecticide is NOT utilitarian? It REALLY meets the threshold of originality? See the link two images up regarding packaging with logos. As creator and uploader, I was not even given a courtesy notice when some anon tagged it as a copyvio or when it was summarily deleted by User:Yann. Is this really the way you guys run Commons? --User:Dante Alighieri 19:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
This image cannot be accepted as it is a derivative of the design. Regards, Yann 21:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
You'll see that I addressed this "claim" above. It is NOT derivative as the object in question does not meet the threshold of originality. See [2] for an explanation. Additionally, please see the link I referenced: [3] which argues in FAVOR of my position. Also, please explain why you didn't feel the need to inform me as to the action that you'd taken? --User:Dante Alighieri 21:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
I undeleted it pending further opinions. Seeing the number of copyright violation deleted, I cannot inform everyone, sorry. Regards, Yann 21:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, sorry, I don't mean to be overly antagonistic, and I see that you're just trying to do administrative cleanup work. My ire is properly directed at whoever tagged it, I suppose. --User:Dante Alighieri 21:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone else want to weigh-in? It's been re-deleted and I'm not sure what the "next step" is... I think it got re-deleted because the tag was still on it. I asked the deleting admin about it, but no response. I would have removed the speedy tag myself, but that's against policy. :( --User:Dante Alighieri 17:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, restored. Copyvio tag removed. / Fred Chess 16:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with this. It's a clear copyvio of the printed image on the side of the can. The printed design is prominent, non-trivial and clearly attracts copyright. It's nothing to do with the picture being a derivative work: nobody is claiming (or at least they shouldn't be) that the can shape itself attracts copyright. --MichaelMaggs 21:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. After discussion with Michael Maggs, it has dawned on me that the image mainly depicts a logo, and as such can not be licensed under a free license. / Fred Chess 19:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Several images, see below[edit]

User:Lestath is deleting images claiming 'bad quality' (or in some cases, without any comment, or claiming duplicates on non-identical photos) in violation of Commons:Deletion guidelines which states 'Redundant or bad quality files never get speedily deleted. They have to be listed the usual way at Commons:Deletion requests and will only be deleted on a case by case basis. '. He is deleting them without informing the uploaders and without stating any discussion. I became aware of this on 24 Feb when most of the images I uploaded on that day were deleted without any message on my talk page several hours afterwards. I have asked him to undelete them and use Deletion Requests. He replied on my talk page refusing to undelete them and stating he will delete any images he deems as bad quality if they are uploaded again. Since then User:Gmaxwell restored several of my images, but several still remain deleted. I would ask for them to be restored, and User:Lestath warned that deleting images in violation of our policies is abuse of admin powers. The images which I am asking to be undeleted are listed below (Lestath comments in parenthesis as found in the deletion logs). While this is irrelevant to this discussion, I agree that some of my images are bad quality, but they also show items that we have no other photo of, and thus are better than no image at all.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All are low-quality or unusable because lack of information, not really needed, keep deleted'--WarX 23:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Katowice is home city of Lestath, and he makes 10 times better photos, just give him time for making photos of entire city--WarX 23:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This just means that Lestath has a vested interest in deleting these images so that he can have his own images be used instead. -- User:Dante Alighieri 00:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Low-quality is not a reason for 'speedy' (thus the images should be undeleted on procedural grounds at the very least). Lack of information - what do you mean by that? They all had best captions I could think of and appopriate categories (anybody can expand them, as User:LUCPOL from English WikiProject:Silesia did, and promised to look over other images I uploaed). Low quality and lack of information is arbitrary and this is why we have deletion debates - so users cannot user their own subjective judgement and delete whatever they think is 'ugly' or 'irrelevant'. Maybe Lestath will take better photos in the future or maybe he won't, and I am not claiming my photos are of any exceptional quality, but at that moment my photos are the only photos we have of Rondo after reconstruction, bridge graffiti, 'stary dworzec', ul. Kościuszki, and green hospital. Lestath doesn't own Katowice nor a monopoly on photos from that city (which is also my hometown, too ;p).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, you cannot speedy delete because of quality. Are there any doubts about this ? Wojsyl 04:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second that. These images must be restored. Commons does not require professional quality photos from its contributors (thankfully, because none of the hundreds of images I uploaded would qualify :) ). The way in which these images were deleted clearly went against Commons policy. And justifying the deletion of highly useful and necessary photos by arguing that better quality photos will be uploaded some time in the future (!) is just ridiculous.Balcer 04:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bad quality pictures should never be speedy deleted, but go through COM:DEL. At least some of them also fit in COM:PS. -- Bryan (talk to me) 09:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As above - Bad quality pictures should never be speedy deleted. This kind of action is a bane on Commons in my experience. Delink them if they really detract from the article, and then the matter can be discussed or whatever. Deuar 15:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with the above. Bad quality is hardly a reason for deletion, so even less for speedy deleting. I restored them. Regards, Yann 00:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lestath has started deleting the again... -- Bryan (talk to me) 18:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I's not simple bad quality, it's very-special-bad quality. If Piotrus wanted to make photos from running car he could clean the windscreen ;)--WarX 19:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the images are bad quality. That still is not a reason for Lestath to silently speedy delete the images. -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does Commons have a section for Review of Admin actions? I think this has gotten to the level where The Powers That Be need to intervene. This behavior is absolutely against policy and unacceptable. --User:Dante Alighieri 21:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So let's suck all junk on free license in the internet, and become black hole!--WarX 21:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed (and I say this as en-wiki admin with 2+ years of experience at that role). This is wheel warring (reverting other admins), going against consensus (all but 1 user here support restoring the images) with an obvious case of breaking policies (Commons deletions with a mix of personal attacks/bad faith threw in). On en-wikipedia, the answer would be to put a user on probation if he apologizes, or desysop if he continues to go rogue. Lestath, po dobroci: stosuj sie do zasad albo bede naciskal na ich przestrzeganie - a to sie moze zle dla kogos skonczyc.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heil! So, first of all this discusion is ill and the reasons of this illness are ambitions of user Piorus. All photos of Katowice made by him are very bad quality and are extremly not usefull. Thats parody of photos are made from behind dirty car window, probably during driving. Mostly are unsharp, very bad cropped, in motion and in bad weather. Please see other pictures of Katowice on Commons and compare with Piotrus photos. Mayby Katowice are Piotrus city, but his photos was made probably for fun, not for serious encyclopaedie. Additionaly he argue that "they also show items that we have no other photo of, and thus are better than no image at all" but in fact we mostly have better pictures of this object - see in Katowice category. Additionaly I uploading new good quality images all the time, and now I'm only wainting for better weather. Could You say me why keep photos in that quality when we have much more photos in much better quality? --Lestat 21:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because "bad quality" is by nature a subjective judgement... I looked at a few, for example Image:Green building through trees.JPG and Image:Kamienice Katowice.JPG, and didn't think they were bad quality.. imagine if all admins deleted images they thought were of bad quality. / Fred Chess 22:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would be great, we should encourage them ;)--WarX 23:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Kamienice Katowice.JPG has awful perspective, but forget about it, funnier thing it's not a kamienica (type of building), but small part old railroad station in Katowice... AFAIK on Wikipedias we delete misleading informations? --WarX 23:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the images by Piotrus are not of best quality, but I have seen a lot worse. One of the people I cooperated with regarding churches on Swedish Wikipedia uploaded images such as Image:Övraby kyrka 4.jpg, but this image is still better than having no image at all.
It appears to me that this issue is partially based on mistrust towards Piotrus. Lestath said "Mayby Katowice are Piotrus city, but his photos was made probably for fun, not for serious encyclopaedie." What is that assumption based on?
And why is it assumed that Piotrus would intentionally upload images with misleading information? Is Piotrus a bad person somehow?
Finally, Lestath, I don't know if you understand how serious it is to keep on deleting images after other administrators have restored them. Eg here and here. Please refrain from doing this and be extra careful about the deletions you make. / Fred Chess 00:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I find Lestath accusations a violation of w:WP:AGF and bordering on w:WP:NPA. I have uploaded hundreds of pics to Commons, many of them my own, and helped organize quite a few categories (particulary Category:Katowice, Category:Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Category:Pittsburgh). To find a rogue admin deleting my images and accusing me of 'uploading bad images for fun' is making me seriously reconsider if I want to contribute to this project (especially as I have explained to him my reasoning in detail on his talk page). The claims that they are redundant are also untrue (see my descriptions above - often my photos are the only photos of a given place we have). I have dozens of photos of Katowice and Pittsburgh ready to upload but if they can be deleted at whim, why should I bother? And when can I expect him to go through rest of my contribs, deleting this or that because he feels one day he may take a better image of those things?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think that Lestat is right concerning the quality of most pictures, but this should be first discussed and maybe deleted. Unfortunetaly, a lot of users upload anything they have and sometimes they don't even know what pictures show (e.g. I think it's a hospital). If you have a bad picture of a subject difficult to photograph (e.g. a picture of an actor, or a distant/difficult place...) I think that it's fine, but just having fun uploading bad pictures randomly it's a behaviour that should be disencouraged. Dantadd✉ 23:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of users at other projects distrust the Wikimedia Commons. Random deletion of images is one of the reasons why. How can I tell the users at no.wikipieda that local uploading is bad and uploading to Commons is good when their uploads disappear because an admin thinks that the images are “bad quality?” All these images should be restored immediately. Kjetil_r 03:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this sort of behavior by Commons admins is allowed to continue with no repercussions, I will cease uploading my new images to Commons and upload them only to EN. --User:Dante Alighieri 21:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between us and EN is that we tend not to hit people with sticks for a single mistake they make. -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which would be great if Lestath would say he is sorry and will be more careful, alas, if he doesn't admit he did anything wrong, what will stop him from deleting images of others users, without informing them (I was 'lucky' to check my gallery soon after his deletion and notice missing pictures, or I might have never known; also, I know enough about Wiki to find violated policy and the place to complain - many casual users wouldn't).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lestath has shown ZERO contrition and seems to have no conception that what he's done is even WRONG. I'm not suggesting that you use a "stick" for a "single mistake", I'm suggesting that you ACTUALLY ENFORCE policy when faced with someone who has shown repeated violations and every intent to continue in the future! To ignore this is to make the "policies" on commons no more than "suggestions" that people will ignore at will. If that is truly the way things run around here, I pity this part of Wikimedia. --User:Dante Alighieri02:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Image:Libertarian National Socialist Green Party logo.svg[edit]

Why was this deleted? // Liftarn

Because you tagged it with "logo" which puts it into speedy deletion queue.... I've restored it. / Fred Chess 13:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are the deletions done by a robot? // Liftarn
No. But when admins sometimes tend to be robots when seeing the deletion queue. -- Bryan (talk to me) 10:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2007-02&oldid=5961442"