Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2007-09

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

Hong Kong District Logos[edit]

Request for temporary undeletion for 2 days. These logos were deleted due to copyvio (see here for the deletion requests). I would like to transfer them to Chinese Wikipedia for fair use. - Keithorz 14:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the first five. I will restore the rest after confirmation that the first five have been successfully transfered. / Fred J 14:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Transferred as w:zh:Image:WanChai D2.gif, w:zh:Image:CentralWestern D2.gif, w:zh:Image:Southern D2.gif, w:zh:Image:KowloonCity D2.gif and w:zh:Image:ShamShuiPo D2.gif. - Keithorz 04:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect. I have undeleted the rest. / Fred J 09:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keithorz, have you transfered them yet? I want to remind you that it is a temporary undeletion only, thank you. / Fred J 17:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done now. Sorry for the delay. - Keithorz 01:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All deleted again, request closed. / Fred J 09:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Images of two statues[edit]

Two photographs taken by me - Image:Gen Con Indy 2007 - giant model (beholder) - 01.JPG and Image:Gen Con Indy 2007 - giant model (troll) - 02.JPG" - were recently deleted (without informing me, the uploader) by User:MichaelMaggs; in both cases he cited a reason for deletion "Infringement of copyright in 3D work". We have many photos of modern models, buildings, statues, sculptures and similar objects (cars, tools, toys, you name it) - I don't understand how photos of two statues I took are any different. I would appreciate an explanation and either undeletion of the images, or info on what can be done to be able to publish photos of similar objects under free licence.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These models are copyright works of art in their own right, and your photos infringe that copyright unless you are able to demonstrate that you have a licence from the artist. For the legal distinction between photos of cars/tool and models/toys, see Commons:Derivative works#I know that I can't upload photos of copyrighted art (like paintings and statues), but what about toys? Toys are not art!. In some countries Freedom of Panorama allows photos of copyright buildings, and in a very few (such as the UK) that extends to 3D works of artistic craftsmanship, but neither applies here. I am sorry you weren't informed, but they were correctly labelled for speedy deletion as obvious copyvios. --MichaelMaggs 22:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: There is no freedom of panorama in the U.S. Therefore it is copyrighted as it was created in 2007, a year where anything created without a copyright notice is automatically copyrighted by the creator. The tagger of the images should've informed the uploader that it was marked as a copyvio, and if he/she didn't, then the deleting admin should've contacted the uploader that it was a copyvio and that it was going to be deleted soon. (→O - R L Y?) 22:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:The Beatles album cover.jpg[edit]

Cover of the album The Beatles also known as the White Album by The Beatles was deleted as a copyvio. Actually the album cover is ineligible for copyright, as it is simply the words "The Beatles" against a plain background. You can see the album cover here. --Hautala 23:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done; improper deletion as the album cover is too simple to be copyrighted even if the record companies (Apple, Parlophone, and EMI) think otherwise. The font is also a generic one, and that amplifies the reasoning behind this deletion. Will notify the deleting admin and the tagger about this misunderstanding. (→O - R L Y?) 00:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Ms09 16.jpg[edit]

The image Image:Ms09 16.jpg was deleted by user PatriciaR and, I believe, incorrectly. If I remember well, there WAS mention of NASA on the picture, which was the reason she gave to deleting the it. Images produced by NASA are copyright free, so I think this deletion was incorrect. DuqueVisconde 18:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image was deleted because it was thought to be a copyright violation taken from http://www.cdbrasil.cnpm.embrapa.br/ms/htm2/ms09_16.htm, apparently a branch of the Brazilian Ministry of Agriculture. The deleted image and the image on that page, which does not credit NASA, are identical.

Could we get an administrator on Portuguese Wikipedia to let us know what the image description page there said before it was deleted (apparently as a result of having been moved here if I'm reading pt:Ajuda:Guia de eliminação/Tutorial de nomeação de eliminação rápida correctly)?

The image description on Commons did not provide any verifiable source information. It should not be undeleted unless such verifiable information is first provided. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the website http://www.cdbrasil.cnpm.embrapa.br/ms/htm2/ms09_16.htm it is said the image can be reproduced as long as it cites the website as source. (The website does indeed belong to a branch of the Brazilian Ministry of Agriculture). I first loaded the image on the Portuguese Wikipedia and someone from there transfered the image to Commons without citing the source here (which I had done there). This could be easily corrected if the image is undeleted and I can cite the source (the website above). DuqueVisconde 16:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above mentioned website states that reproduction is allowed but has no mention about possibility of derivative work or commercial use. Moreover, there is no mention in the website (at least I could not find it) that the original image belongs to NASA.

The image description before deletion (the image was deleted because it was subsequently uploaded to Commons) was:

== Descrição do ficheiro ==
MIRANDA, E. E. de; COUTINHO, A. C. (Coord.). Brasil Visto do Espaço. Campinas: Embrapa Monitoramento por Satélite, 2004. Disponível em: <http://www.cdbrasil.cnpm.embrapa.br>. Acesso em: 9 set. 2006. </nowiki>
== Licença ==
{{Uso livre}}

{{Uso livre}} is to be used with some sort of permission or good explanation about why the copyright holder allows the image to be used. I don't believe that is the case here. PatríciaR ^msg 15:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Knownig why the copyright user allows the image to be used is irrelevant. He allows it to be used because he chooses to do so as long as you cite the source, which was cited on the image description as you very well showed. You also cannot make such an affirmation that he won't allow commercial use. The website is very clear. You can use the picture as long as you cite the source. If they wanted to make other specifications they would have. That means they allow any use as long as you cite the source. DuqueVisconde 17:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe my wording was not very clear. What I mean is that the copyright holder must state that the image can be used for any use. That's not the case here and that's not the case in many instances where "reproduction is allowed providing one cites the source". If the possibility of commercial use and modification of the work is not clearly stated, then we cannot assume such. Thus, a permission is needed. If DuqueViscone is able to provide such a permission, I'll gladly undelete the image myself. PatríciaR ^msg 19:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: no apparent allowance of commercial reuse and derivative works is present at this time. If DuqueVisconde can get detailed permission information (use Commons:Email templates as a guide to the message that will be sent) and forwards that reply to permissions-commons at wikimedia dot org, someone from OTRS should be able to confirm the permission (if it is present) and undelete it if the permission does state that commercial reuse and derivative works are allowed. (→O - R L Y?) 20:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

还原历史[edit]

1989.6.4天安门事件，为什么没记录！ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 121.68.65.106 (talk) 13:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

没完成；你要我把什么图画恢复呢？—O (说 • 喝) 20:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Selma Louise Norton[edit]

Deleted with just a single vote, and no Wikimedia policy was violated in it uploading. No valid reason for deletion. At least restore so I can back them up. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment you don't have local copies of your files? Also how can you justify their inclusion under COM:SCOPE and who is the copyright owner of them? If you assert you are, and if you didn't take the pictures, why do the rights devolve to you? -Nard 19:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are asking for a page to be restored. As was explained to you in February, the information on the page goes into too much detail, and looks more like a Wikipedia article about a non-notable person. It's out of scope here; sorry. --MichaelMaggs 20:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrights are transferable, and as the inheritor of the family photo album, I am the defacto rights holder. Concerning excessive text: Thats why the context for the photo was moved to the talk page, to satisfy your concerns. "It's out of scope here; sorry." Please don't just wave your hand and say "sorry", COM:SCOPE says: "Wikimedia Commons is not a web host for e.g. private party photos, self-created artwork without educational purpose and such." These were not "private party photos" or "self-created artwork" They are well categorized images that can used to illustrate fashions or other time dependent articles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I examined the referenced page, and I agree with MichaelMaggs, it reads like a bio. The images may well be good for illustrating period fashions and I'd certainly be willing to entertain undeleting some to see, if you undertook to place them in a gallery, and categorised them in ways that would facilitate their use in illustrating fashion or historical manner of dress articles (as you said you already did). But the way the page was written when deleted was just not in scope for the project. I hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 21:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What if he were to trim the text from that page in gallery space, and instead have pages for each of his family members in user space, such as User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Family/Selma Louise Norton, or on another project altogether?

Not done: consensus says that this is out of project scope. —O (说 • 喝) 01:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Cavenagh Bridge, Children Sculpture, Dec 05.JPG[edit]

Hi, may I know why this image was deleted? It was taken by myself. If the image was deleted as it was not tagged with the requisite licensing label due to oversight, I would do so. It should be licensed under the following: {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0}}

Thanks. —Sengkang 01:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image was deleted by Petrusbarbygere giving the reason "There is no freedom of panorama in France", which, frankly, doesn't seem too relevant given that the image description stated the photo was taken in Singapore, which does have FOP. —LX (talk, contribs) 05:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is no obvious violation, could I request that this image be restored? Thanks. —Sengkang 01:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a picture of a sculpture however not a panorama - was that the issue with an incorrect deletion summary? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm aware (and I know next to nothing about Singaporean copyright law), there are no requirements regarding the prominence of the original work in the derivative for the derivative to be permissible. What you're referring to sounds more like the de minimis doctrine than what's usually meant by "freedom of panorama." Anyway, I've informed the deleting administrator of this discussion, so that we can hopefully get some clarification. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No news? —Sengkang 15:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The deleting administrator has not edited Commons since LX informed that person, and does not have email set up, so all we can do is wait. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. —Sengkang 09:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So was it permanently located there? If this is the case I would undelete. -- Bryan (talk to me) 13:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply and fair comment, with a gracious, detailed explanation one can accept. Much easier to receive this rather than just a -' delete this page ' - marker. It might be that my skills as a writer needs much polishing, and I have much to acquire there. I thought only to give mention and appreciation to one impressive (I thought) Radio Personality. It would be nice to also recieve advide on how one could reword something like this more successfully, you think? Thanks. I might try again much later when I sharpen my skills... Mario3808. P.s I saw the banner... It's not annoying...:>

Done: Singapore has FOP and this image does not infringe that. —O (说 • 喝) 02:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:KappAhl wordmark.svg[edit]

The logo of KappAhl was deleted as being against policy. The logo is just the word "KappAhl" in some usual typeface, and cannot be copyrighted at all, therefore being legal for Commons. You can see the wordmark here. It was tagged as PD-textlogo. --Hautala 10:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An IP tagged it as {{Fair use}}. I have undeleted it to the last version by you. / Fred J 12:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closing. / Fred J 12:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Jandumee.jpg[edit]

Hello Polarlys,

As a matter of fact the image I have supposedly re-uploaded was not the same one. The original one was sent to me by artist in question (Jan Dumée) and the use was approved by both him and the photographer. To avoid any confusions, I uploaded another photo taken by *myself* and this was clearly stated on the photo description so in my way of thinking what you did was a huge mistake. I am going to re-upload it soon and I kindly ask you to be more careful next time.

Thanks for your time, Rpwerneck 16:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done, Image:Jandumee.jpg has been restored. / Fred J 17:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Yuan Dynasty.jpg[edit]

This image was uploaded by me some time ago, for use in Chinese Wikipedia. The image was directly modified and translated to the Chinese language by myself from this image in English Wikipedia, whose license is "The copyright holder of this image allows anyone to use it for any purpose including unrestricted redistribution, commercial use, and modification.". Thus, the image does not violate any third party rights and may be undeleted. Thanks! --Wengier 18:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. Please include a link to the original image on the image page. Cary Bass ^demandez 18:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thanks again.--Wengier 19:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the original image has been discovered to be a copyright violation and is being deleted. Cary Bass ^demandez 19:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Freudenberg ArthurOscar 02.jpg[edit]

Is it possible to undelete this image? We use it for the Russian Wikipedia article on Postcard. I understand that there was some discussion about a group of private images that belong to Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) and there was some questionable decision to delete them. My guess is that before you delete something you have to check if this is really unused by Wikipedia and for Wikipedia. A simple Google/Wikipedia search is straightforward and extremely helpful. The image deleted was a good example of an old postcard originally also used by the English Wikipedia for the article Postcard. In the furture, please don't forget about postcards, philately, philocartia and other collecting areas and collectibles before deleting anything. Thanks. --Michael Romanov 05:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done, Image:Freudenberg ArthurOscar 02.jpg has been restored to its original state. / Fred J 07:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, Fred. --Michael Romanov 17:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Fred! Nickpo 17:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Pabst Plan[edit]

Some days ago Yann closed

without providing a rationale. I asked Lupo (User_talk:Lupo#two_requests_for_deletion) to provide an analysis on this topic, since I believe he is an administrator, who is able to provide such an analysis independent from national interests. He said: „I'll think about the Warsaw plans later, off-hand, this looks like a post-war confiscation to me. I would think the copyright in Germany and the EU in general would still be valid, but that probably the plans might be considered uncopyrighted in Poland due to that confiscation. I think they should be transferred to the Polish WP and then be deleted here. But I'll give this some more thought.“ In the meantime, the request was closed by Julo (don’t mention the interaction on pl.wikipedia.org's user talk pages). The plan was done by Hubert Groß (died in 1992) and the current PD claim (PD-Polish) collides with European copyright laws.

I think it’s a good idea to wait for Lupo’s rationale.

--Polarlys 18:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Polarlys, I said I was going to think about this, but I don't particularly like to have my hand forced. Anyway, I have not found any sources either way so far. The comment you quoted above is based on my understanding of other such confiscations after the war (German materials in UK or U.S. archives), and I still stand by it. In fact, I would even question whether the plan is really PD in Poland. I notice that the Polish state archive claims copyright: see here and in particular here. And if someone doubts that they claim copyright on what appears to be a title page of the Pabst plan, just right-click the image shown at the second link. (I get a pop-up stating "Wszystkie prawa zastrzeżone/All rights reserved/Tous droits réservés"). Lupo 19:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm, I am sorry that it looked that way. It’s just the point that your expertise is outstanding and thus you are a man in great demand here on Commons. ;-) --Polarlys 20:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What?[edit]

dont delete poovae unakkaga tamil movie pls iwant it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.92.45.133 (talk • contribs) at 11:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is slated for deletion or do you want undeleted? Thanks! — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 00:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alcmaeonid[edit]

Please undelete: Alcmaeonid I noticed the e-mail confirmation a day late. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alcmaeonid (talk • contribs) at 13:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly do you want undeleted? Thanks! — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 00:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Portalfilm2long2.jpeg[edit]

Please can anybody restore Image:Portalfilm2long2.jpeg? It's used by the German Portal:Film. Thanks in advance for your help. --HohesC 18:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. It was deleted because it included this Stock Exchange image, which was also deleted here because the Stock Exchange images need express permission by the author, which we didn't have in this case. As a derivative work of that image, Image:Portalfilm2long2.jpeg also got deleted. And anyway, this old problem has been resolved long ago, Portal:Film now uses Image:Portalfilm3long.jpeg. Lupo 15:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:LH-Senator and Business Lounge.jpg[edit]

File:LH-Senator and Business Lounge.jpg has been deleted stating dv (log). There was no deletion request. There is no understandable reason for deleting. See also Commons Forum -- 84.56.8.40 15:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not done, please scroll up (or click the link) to #image:LH-Senator_and_Business_Lounge.jpg. / Fred J 17:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:DaddyYankee.jpg[edit]

I'm not sure why it was deleted, but if you look at the upload log, it was sourced as having been uploaded to the English Wikipedia by TIP-XL. ShadowHalo 22:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted because the image description page did not include a source for the image ([1]). --Boricuaeddie 02:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware. What I'm saying is that it was sourced to TIP-XL from English Wikipedia when it was uploaded, so I'm not sure why it was later deleted as being unsourced (my guess is vandalism since I've seen at least one image tagged as unsourced after someone blanked most of the description page). Regardless, is there a reason to not undelete the image? ShadowHalo 02:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Source found. -- Bryan (talk to me) 09:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ShadowHalo: It wasn't deleted due to vandalism. As Boricua said, it was deleted for not having a source. It had an author but not a source. To avoid this situation, I recommend you use commonshelper for further uploads. Regards Fred J 12:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I was unaware that the filename on Wikipedia had to be provided. I had been under the impression that it wouldn't be helpful since that copy normally gets deleted. ShadowHalo 18:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Trophy.png+Image:Wikinewscontestwinner.PNG[edit]

They were both deleted because they were based on an image without an acceptable source (image:Trophy.jpg), However the source for that image has been deemed acceptable, therefor they should be undeleted. Bawolff 00:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both undeleted (the first one with a sigh..) / Fred J 12:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

find photos of JOHN LESTER FERRER the supervisor of the SMART TELEPHONE COMPANY in MANDALUYONG CITY[edit]

[[:Image:]] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.213.212.114 (talk • contribs) at 05:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a valid undeletion request. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Musca[edit]

Musca is a constellation. Category:Musca has been deleted on January 2007, for an unknown reason (content was: '{{Speedydelete}}). I want to complete the set of categories for the 88 modern constellations, so I request the undeletion of this category. --Juiced lemon 17:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to deletion, the content was [[Category:Muscidae]] (referring to insects), so undeletion wouldn't serve your purpose here. I don't see any reason why you couldn't just create it for the astronomical purpose (it's not really a recreation under the circumstances). --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 23:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware of this homonym. Therefore, I have created Category:Musca (constellation) (so, I didn't rewrite over a file history), which may be a subcategory of Category:Musca. This category can still be undeleted to make it a redirection. --Juiced lemon 13:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still not sure that I understand the need for an undelete in this case. Unless I'm missing something, I think creating a new page would work better for the redirect. FloNight 15:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of Category:Musca is a genus. As long as it remains unused, it is best to redirect it to the constellation. Erasing histories of previous edits is unseemly. --Juiced lemon 01:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to disagree but I do. I think starting from scatch is better here. I'm aware that the previous category refers to genus. I see no reason to undelete a category related to a different topic (genus) and have it be a redirect to constellation. The edit history is not erased either way. This way gives us a clean slate to work with. That is good, I think, since this category is a unrelated topic. FloNight 16:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Musca is the latin name for the fly. The genus Musca stems most probably from the Latin name of the fly. I assume that the Musca constellation was named from the Latin name of the fly, since its former name was Apis (the bee) (therefore, the name of the constellation wouldn't stem from the genus Musca).

In Commons, the genus Musca is a valid subject for a category. However, it doesn't contain media files at the moment. So, temporarily, Category:Musca is a redirection to Category:Musca (constellation). There is no valid reason to overwrite its history. --Juiced lemon 16:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was restored by Bryan (talk | contribs) 08:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC). — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 00:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Helmholtz pitch notation.svg[edit]

Please can I request undeletion of Image:Helmholtz pitch notation.svg. I was unaware of the request to amend the license, as although I requested deletion notices be posted on w:User talk:Mdcollins1984 this was not done so, therefore I had no time to supply the license. I 'thought' that the following (or similar) was provided when I uploaded it, but obviously cannot check now! It is a self-made image, therefore I can see no reason why a license cannot be provided. If the following is not correct, please notify me (on my en.wk account mentioned earlier) I will attempt to address any problems. Many thanks Mdcollins1984 10:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC) {{Information |Description= Graphic details the nomenclature and musical octave naming using the [[w:Hermann von Helmholtz]] system. |Source=self-made |Date= 3 August 2007 |Author= [[User:Mdcollins1984|Mdcollins1984]] }} {{PD-self|author=I, [[User:Mdcollins1984|Mdcollins1984]]}} [[Category:Musical notation]][reply]

Done -- Bryan (talk to me) 08:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Lower Silesian Voivodeship[edit]

This category was deleted on September 2006, for an unknown reason. Comment is: content was: '{{delete}}' (and the only contributor was User:LUCPOL).

According to the English Wikipedia Lower Silesian Voivodeship, Category:Lower Silesian Voivodeship is the correct name for this subject. Therefore, I request the undeletion of this category. --Juiced lemon 10:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done - can't see any real reason for deletion & request looks ok --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The galleries about voivodeships will be renamed in Polish. --Juiced lemon 12:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Those categories should be named in Polish language - category:województwo dolnośląskie, English version is one of heavy damages done to commons by LUCPOL! --WarX 14:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category has been undeleted by User:Herbythyme. The category system would become a disaster if non-English names were to be used, eg. chinese, kyrillic or japanese writing. Thuresson 23:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Name of this category is an original research. There is no such thing as official translation of those names into English. Jakubhal 12:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as above, there is no official translation of Polish voivodships and it would become harder for many Polish users to categorize their images Pimke 18:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Shouldn't we prefer English language on this international project? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 03:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Silesian Voivodeship[edit]

This category was deleted on September 2006, for an unknown reason. Comment is: content was: '{{delete}}' (and the only contributor was User:LUCPOL).

According to the English Wikipedia Silesian Voivodeship, Category:Silesian Voivodeship is the correct name for this subject. Therefore, I request the undeletion of this category. --Juiced lemon 10:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done seems reasonable --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Those categories should be named in Polish language - category:województwo śląskie, English version is one of heavy damages done to commons by LUCPOL! --WarX 14:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Name of this category is an original research. There is no such thing as official translation of those names into English. Jakubhal 12:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose no official translation of Polish voivodships Pimke 18:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Opole Voivodeship[edit]

This category was deleted on September 2006, for an unknown reason. Comment is: content was: '{{delete}}' (and the only contributor was User:LUCPOL).

According to the English Wikipedia Opole Voivodeship, Category:Opole Voivodeship is the correct name for this subject. Therefore, I request the undeletion of this category. --Juiced lemon 11:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done seems reasonable --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Those categories should be named in Polish language - category:województwo opolskie, English version is one of heavy damages done to commons by LUCPOL! --WarX 14:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those categories should be named in English language, because it's Commons:Language policy. In Polish language, the whole substructure about subdivisions of Poland is unworkable. --Juiced lemon 15:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no rule about categories in Language policy. I want to focus you on problem, that there is no 'Opole voivodeship'. Polish grammar rule for creating names of województwa and powiaty is: take the adjective derivated from noun and add division type before it. So we get województwo śląskie (English Silesian Voivodeship is correct, but not lowercase as Polish!), województwo opolskie, etc. Opole Voivodeship doesn't fall into this rule! --WarX 16:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. There is a clear rule in Commons:Language policy: So far, Categories are in English. That means: “Categories are mandatory in English”, AND “this rule exits since the beginning of the Commons project”. The obvious result from these two assertions is that any category with a non-English category name has been created while infringing the rule. Therefore, any illicit category should be renamed without discussion (except for the choice of the (English) name of the destination category). --Juiced lemon 18:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So first give proposal of all 16 names of Voivodeships in English (not Polish-English) and then we can discuss. --WarX 19:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support undeletion, per Juiced. / Fred J 20:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have gathered various informations in User:Juiced lemon/Poland. The page organization is similar to a web page of The Chancellery of the Prime Minister, Republic of Poland: sorry, but “Polish-English” comes from Poland. In the English Wikipedia, the Polish names of the voivodeships have been translated as far as possible, and I think that the resulting names for Voivodeships of Poland are appropriate. “Świętokrzyskie” is not translated to “Holy Cross”, because there is no established usage for “Holy Cross”. --Juiced lemon 10:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But Opole Voivodeship refers to itself as Opolskie Province on the webpage of Opolskie Province (State) Office !!!--WarX 16:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The wording in the web page of The Chancellery of the Prime Minister is: Opolskie Voivodeship Office. The link leads to a page in Polish without notable title.

Opolskie is an adjectival form relating to the city of Opole. In the English translation, the name of the city remains unchanged. I don't understand your objection. --Juiced lemon 16:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.opole.uw.gov.pl/1angielski/index.php - this is official webpage of State Office. --WarX 18:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then, what is your problem? --Juiced lemon 19:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The reason of my oppose is simple: there is no one offcial translation of the name of the voivodeship into English. The simplest way to avoid a suspicion of own research is to keep the Polish name: "województwo opolskie". Galileo01 18:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Name of this category is an original research. There is no such thing as official translation of those names into English. Jakubhal 12:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are established translations of the names of the Polish voivodeships. It doesn't matter if they are not official ones. The issue has been resolved in this page: w:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography of Poland. If we question each decision made in the English Wikipedia, we go to write a duplicate English encyclopaedia... and we'll not do the work which fall to Commons project. --Juiced lemon 13:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

English Wikipedia is not the God of all projects that we have to obey! Especially when it's simply wrong - nameing convention created there was made by less than 30 persons without analizing problems that it made. Commons can solve this problem very easy cause we don't have to create and use English names - we can simply use Polish ones cause it in project's scope. --WarX 15:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are simply wrong (and you ar far less than 30 persons): Polish names for categories are not in this project's scope. You obstruct the working in this project and you have not analized the consequences. --Juiced lemon 17:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons scope is to be store images for all Wikimedia projects. That does not really say anything about the language of categories. But it might imply that it is desirable for all users from different language projects to be able to use their native language, even for categories. Since it is not currently possible to have different names in different language for a category, we have to stick to one language for each category. To not make a total category mess, it is best to use the same language for all categories. And since English is the most widely used language, that is probably the best choice. That does not mean that names from English Wikipedia always has to be used. But when names have been discussed at Wikipedia, it seems unnecessary to have the same discussions here on Commons. /81.231.248.85 23:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion. English is the choice of language for categories. Original name as such can be used if that is the name used in English language media or if no other names are used in English language media. Samulili 11:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose no official translation of Polish voivodships Pimke 18:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Se ha borrado una imagen que se encontraba en dominio público[edit]

La imagen Image:Estatuilla hercules gaditano.jpg se ha borrado, encontrándose en dominio público y viniendo explicada y con referencias. ¿Por qué se ha borrado? Creo que representa un icono importante en la historia de las colonias fenicias y particularmente en Cádiz.

Muchas gracias

Lillie Tomlin

The image was deleted with the note 'deleted "Image:Estatuilla hercules gaditano.jpg" ‎ (Commons:Derivative works: copyright violation, it depicts a copyrighted work which is not published under a free license]]'. How can this be "depicting a copyrighted work" when the statue is thousands of years old? --Itub 08:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sculpture is a three dimensional work of art. The image was taken from http://www.juntadeandalucia.es/cultura/museos/MCA/index.jsp?redirect=S2_3_1_1.jsp&idpieza=118&pagina=1 with an invalid PD claim. Sorry for the misleading comment in the log for deletion. --Polarlys 21:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I see now. The problem is not that it is a derivative work, but that the rights of the photograph presumably belong to the Junta de Andalucia. --Itub 08:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Undelete Image:FluxxEN-DE.jpg[edit]

It isn't clear to me why this image was deleted. Aldaron 19:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ThinBoy00 added {{copyvio|copyright of Wunderland and/or Looney labs}} with comment: This is a copyright violation, tha Fluxx cards would obviously be copyrighted by the game's creator/parent company Platonides 21:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But that's wrong. This shows a comparison shot (of two different language editions of the game, in fact), which is clearly not a copyright violation. Aldaron 14:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that it is not a copyright violation when the image is used to compare different language editions. You may very well use the image as a fair use in several Wikipedia projects. However, the image is not as free as is required for hosting it on Commons. If you want to transfer the image to your local project, I can undelete the image for a while so you can do that. Samulili 05:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks. Aldaron 13:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I will delete again after 48 hours. Samulili 14:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, thanks. You can delete it again, a fair use replacement is posted on Wikipedia. Aldaron 03:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:echomovementselftitled.jpg[edit]

please undelete this image. the info and permission was all done properly and emailed to permissions-en@wikimedia.org from my email: dachronic215@aol.com . i do not know why [user:dodo] deleted it. thank you for your time. -Dachronic215 05:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a photo of a CD cover. You did not provide any OTRS information, nor did you give a source that can verify that the cover is licensed under GFDL. Thuresson 02:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:PortraitGirl2005-1.jpg[edit]

As per the original deletion request discussion can we have Image:PortraitGirl2005-1.jpg restored. Despite that discussion and 'kept' decision, and a note on the images discussion page it was erroneously deleted[2] as a 'duplicate'. User:Siebrand restored the image then stored it as a 'version' of Image:PortraitGirl2005-1a.jpg (then deleted it again) after a short discussion. But this is the wrong thing to do on a number of fronts:

although both derived from the same original image, both these files are different forks, they are different crops, one is not a subset of the other.
one was promoted to being a Quality Image, the other as a Featured Picture
we have now also lost the revision history of Image:PortraitGirl2005-1.jpg that led to its QI promotion
the bot replaced references to Image:PortraitGirl2005-1.jpg with Image:PortraitGirl2005-1a.jpg but this destroys the integrity of the QI archive - version 1a is not the one promoted as a QI. (I have reverted the bots changes to the archive and QI page, but cannot reconnect them to display the correct image if it is only available as a 'revision' of another image (it may be possible, but I don't know how :-)).

(Yes the differences are slight but important to the reviewers, but this is often the case with QI and FP candidates) --Tony Wills 06:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted. -- Bryan (talk to me) 12:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, much appreciated :-) --Tony Wills 12:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Find hereunder our declaration for deleted files[edit]

Hello,

Please find hereunder our declaration. We also kindly ask you to undelete those files. I would apreciate you short confirmation to sybillezahnd@yahoo.de

Thank you!

"I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive

Copyright of following images:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:IT1Kbill.jpg

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:IT5Kbill.jpg

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:IT10Kbill.jpg

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:IT25Kbill.jpg

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:IT500bill.jpg

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:IT250bill.jpg

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:IT50bill.jpg

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Caratteristiche_di_sicurezza.jpg

I agree to publish that work under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.0 License (cc-by-sa-2.0).

I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product, and to modify it according to their needs.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me.

I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the

option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement and that the image may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

30.08.2007, M&S Investment GmbH

Please provide some evidence that you are the designer / artist behind the Iraqi currency. Thuresson 02:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An email from this company has been received on OTRS. I posted this problem on Commons_talk:Licensing#Iraqi_money, but nobody responed. I heard from people on IRC that copyright in Iraq is complex, as the new parliament has not yet passed a copyright law. Under the old law there is nothing that suggest that banknotes are not protected by copyright. I thus believe that the images should not be undeleted. -- Bryan (talk to me) 11:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Golda_Meir,_bw_photo_portrait,_head_and_shoulders,_facing_right,_March_1,_1973.jpg[edit]

Duplicate deleted before usage check, lot's of unnecessary red links at various projects (I've fixed no:, sv:, nl: and de: , but there's probably lot's more remaining.) Finn Rindahl 16:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how it came to that. I requested a run of the CommonsDelinker and removed the few picuteres it returned as problem manually. Have undeleted it for you to see. -- Cecil 16:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cecil, (sorry for assuming "before usage check"). Seems CommonsDelinker is up to speed now [3], but let's wait until the database lag gives us a correct usage check before this image is redeleted. Finn Rindahl 17:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Since I'm still new with doing these things mistakes on my side can happen. Last week the s2-cluster had sometimes problems so maybe there was a problem at that time too but the CheckUsage-Tool didn't showed it. Everything except en.WP (checked manually) is now uptodate, so I once again deleted it. -- Cecil 09:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Two to restore[edit]

Image:Temporary pocket shim.jpg and Image:Seven-ball hex rack with special 7 ball 1a.jpg were both created by me; I may have failed to say so. SMcCandlish 04:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you wrote that they were 'own work' and that you are the author, but the licence was missing. -- Cecil 08:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. License should be: {{self|GFDL|cc-by-2.5}}, same as at Image:Seven-ball hex rack with special 7 ball 1.jpg and pretty much everything else I've uploaded that isn't a modification of something already present here. SMcCandlish 08:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted. --Para 09:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Vista Start Menu program[edit]

Hi,

Vista Start Menu program has no relations to Windows Vista and has own TM http://www.vistastartmenu.com

Still copyrighted software. —O (说 • 喝) 18:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unjustly deleted[edit]

Image:George_Hoadley.jpg Image:Thomas_Henry_Blow.jpg Image:Thomas_Tweedie.jpg Image:George_Douglas_Stanley.jpg

These 4 images were unjustly deleted by acrimonious claims that there was no source listed. I listed the source of the images when I posted the images in the automatically generated summary template, I scanned these from Micro film from Calgary Heralds and Edmonton Bulletin news papers prior to 1917 and listed the dates of publication as well as the publication they were put in. I am so angry I will never contribute my time to provide another photo to the commons USER:Siebrand should be stripped of his administrator powers for this. --Cloveious 10:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I restored them and removed the insulting content from your user page. Errare humanum est. --Polarlys 12:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Polarlys has undeleted. --MichaelMaggs 17:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]