Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2008-01

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

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

Image:Ahmed_Shah_Durrani.png[edit]

After investigating, I think the above image was wrongly deleted by User:Zirland. [1] There was already a lengthy discussion made in May of 2007, Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Ahmad Shah Durrani - 1747.jpg, in which it was conluded that the image remains on Wiki Commons [2], but he went ahead and deleted it anyway. I think the original copyright owner is still user:PRTkand [3], someone who has uploaded the image in 2006. It appears to me that somebody decided to make a crop version of this image and then submit that to this website, so it can be visible there as well but in a different size so that the Artist's name is unseen. According to my findings, Christopher Buyers, owner of that website cannot be the copyright owner of this image. To be more sure, when this black and white (Image:Durrani-Ahmad.jpg) was uploaded on February 4, 2007, the deleted image did not exist at the website of Christopher Buyers, rather Image:Durrani-Ahmad.jpg was there in its place at that time. I hope everything make sense here. I hate to see someone be deprived of something. I would like for this image to be undeleted. PRTkand doesn't appear to be coming online either here or on flickr.com but I will try to contact that person anyway so that to let him know of the situtation. I will also try to contact Christopher Buyers. Probably PRTkand and Christopher Buyers may know one another, but we'll find out later.--Executioner 17:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I agree with you that Christopher Buyers is not the copyright owner and that this picture is a cropped version of PRTkand's photo. But this photograph is a derivative work of a painting and the copyright owner of this painting is not PRTkand. The painter is Afghan contemporary artist Tapand therefore this work is not PD-Old as PRTkand claimed. However, on Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Ahmad Shah Durrani - 1747.jpg, Madmax32 tells us that "Afghanistan did not ratify the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works so the works are not obliged to be protected by copyright" so I don't know what to conclude. — Xavier, 12:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment If you read the discussion of May 2007, up above, PRTkand did not claim the work to be PD-Old. It was Madmax32 who claimed it to be PD-Old [4]--Executioner 20:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, this was PRTkand claim and it has nothing to do with that discussion: (s)he put a {{PD-old}} template (and a {{PD-Art}} a few minutes later) on that picture, which is obviously wrong since (s)he knows very well who the actual author is. — Xavier, 01:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't make sense. But what makes sense is that he most likely placed those tags on recommendations or comments in the discussion by other users. He is obviously new and most likely not aware how to select and apply the best license, so he decided to put several license tags and let someone else choose the correct one.--Executioner 20:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, what seems obvious to me is that if he had told those other users that the artist was still alive, those other users would certainly not have advised him to add a PD-old license to his pictures.
Back to the topic, here is what I propose: I've identified several pictures of Tapand paintings and I'm going to ask for their deletion. If they are kept, then I'll restore this picture. — Xavier, 18:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See: Commons:Deletion requests/Paintings by Tapand — Xavier, 21:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me, and here is what I want to explain. My brother (User:PRTkand) didn't understand the licenses at the time he was uploading them, he was excided and quickly uploaded few of my paintings, which were of Ahmad Shah Durrani. I tried to help him at that time but I was new my self, then I decided to make my account so I can upload images on my own. PRTkand does not come online much, he is very busy with his work. I am the owner of all the paintings, I purchased them from Tapand (artist). I have dozens of others which I am not going to upload because they are private, but I could upload an image that will show me standing next to the paintings at my home. It will prove that these are my paintings. That's if somebody really must see if I'm telling the truth or not. By the way, these paintings don't cost much. I paid less than $100 each.--Executioner 22:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done; too old to be copyrighted. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 19:35, 30 December 2007 (GMT)

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

Please Undelete Iorek Byrnisson and Lyra Belacqua.jpg[edit]

I would have preferred to clarify any open questions the deleter might have had, but contrary to the usual policy, there was not even a notice on my talk page that this picture was up for deletion for what I see as a legal mis-assumption.

While the deleters view of copyright might apply to posters and suchlike, a statue in a public place, as this was, on public display and specifically for use as a picture background, as in this case, is not copyrighted in the reproduction. The image, taken by me as a accredited reporter for wikinews, are (cc-by-sa-3.0) and can be used on Wikipedia and Wikinews (de.wikinews allows only pics uploaded on the commons). On en.wikipedia the remaining picture is a CV while this picture was not. Please revert.

Please take any comments or questions to my talk page, so I'll see it immediately. Thanks. --Gwyndon 01:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This was speedy deleted as an obvious derivative work, and a high-risk one at that as it shows a models used to publicise a film which is just about to be released. Models and statues are copyright, and the image infringes that copyright. The fact that the model was in a public place makes no difference. Please read Commons:Derivative works.--MichaelMaggs 07:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Michael. These figures qualify as sculptures, and are copyrighted. The photo is thus a derivative work of these figures. The photo was taken at the Frankfurt Book Fair 2007, where they were exhibited temporarily in one of the halls. Therefore, German "Panoramafreiheit"/"Straßenbildfreiheit" doesn't apply either. You may take such pictures for private uses, and you may be able to use such photos for news reporting under "fair use" or a similar provision, but you cannot publish them under a free license without the consent of whoever owns the copyright on these figures. Lupo 10:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Three things have to be taken into account here: (1) It was not in one of the halls, it was on display outside, publicly accessible and thus falls under German law "Panoramafreiheit". (2) I was there as accredited reporter for Wikinews - accredited as such and as fotographer with a press pass of the Frankfurt BookFair, and was supposed to take and to publicise pictures of what I see. (3) The statues were meant to be (and used as) photografic backgrounds for anyone with a camera and I took my picture for publication with the consent of the exhibitor present there. So from (3) my asking (2) my press privileges and (1) German Urheberrecht it is my right to publish that picture, under a licence of my choosing. --Gwyndon 23:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, art 59 says "It shall be permissible to reproduce, by painting, drawing, photography or cinematography, works which are permanently located on public ways, streets or places..". This was a temporary, not a permanent exhibit, and the exception does not apply; hence my comment that being in a public place in this case makes no difference. The whole concept of Panoramafreiheit is predicated on the necessity for the subject being on permanent display. Your status as a photographer is relevent only if it means the copyright owner has provided you with written consent to use your images in any way you wish, including commercially (as you know, that is an absolute requirement for Commons). To be honest, I doubt that the film-makers would grant you or any other photographer a licence that wide, but if they did please send a copy to OTRS where it can be formally logged. I'm afraid that without such formal evidence it wouldn't be right for me or anyone else to restore the image. Sorry. --MichaelMaggs 23:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you need written consent from the copyright owner (ie the film studio), not just from the exhibitor who happened to be there on the day. He or she will not have had authority to bind the studio in granting you the necessary legal consents. What do you think the studio's legal counsel would say if you asked for a commercial release for your image? --MichaelMaggs 23:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned on your talk page, under § 57 of German UrhG the object photographed is not protected anyway, as it is neither part of the protected work, the movie, nor a screenshot nor a model used in it, not a n-dimensional reproduction of any scene, but merely a decoration item for advertising. If I would request consent from the studio or their German representatives, I assume it could not be denied, but I have to admit that the quality of the picture in question might not merit the effort. --Gwyndon 04:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Art 57 reads "It shall be permissible to reproduce, distribute and publicly communicate works if they may be regarded as insignificant and incidental with regard to the actual subject of the reproduction, distribution or public communication"; the main infringing element in your image (the model of the bear) is fundamental, not incidental. On my talk page you have also mentioned art 50. That article does not apply to us as it permits only "reporting on events of the day by broadcast or film and in newspapers or periodicals mainly devoted to current events". We fall into none of those categories. --MichaelMaggs 07:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I tried to argue, the model is not part of the protected work, the movie, and does not appear in it at any given moment. Neither does the run-of-the-mill doll on top of it. They are in no way fundamental, they are incidental promo decoration. Art.50 is relevant insofar as de.wikinews falls exactly into this category - and commons is the only accepted image source for de.wikinews, thus, in my understanding, uploading an image for that purpose should also be perfectly legal. Anyway, while we differ in our understanding of the law and its ramnifications, this image would be worth the effort only if the quality of it would be significantly better. --Gwyndon 10:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article 50 is a "fair-use"-like provision for news reporting. While it is true that de.wikinews falls into that category, that does not make the image free. You could upload it locally at de-WN (if they allow that), but we cannot host it at the Commons. Whether the model appears in the film or not is irrelevant; it is a close rendering of the character as it appears in the film. The model may or may not have been an "incidental" component of the promo stand, but in any case it is not "incidental" but clearly the main subject in the photo. Lupo 10:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. The main subject was a copyrighted work. The work was a temporary display and is therefore not covered by freedom of panorama provisions. Photography for publication purposes may have been allowed, but that does not imply public domain status or approval for free licensing of the original work and its derivatives, and Wikimedia Commons cannot host contents with reference to fair use provisions. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

Image:Michelangelo_Caravaggio_038.jpg[edit]

  • Undeletion Reason: the image is part of Caravaggio's series, and is currently being used in id.wiki, they're two different versions, with the original image is larger and better (credit to LX), no previous deletion request (as i know of).
  • Suggestion: delete Image:Caravaggio-Crucifixion of Peter.jpg instead :) id:User:Bennylin 14 December 2007 (UTC)

 Comment And why not the other way around? I've updated id.wiki with the existing image. It works so I can't see any further problem. --Ecemaml (talk to me/habla conmigo) 06:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it didn't because the gallery was built following the numbering: 001, 002, ..., 038, ... which is why i stated the reason above (part of Caravaggio's series). id:User:Bennylin 04:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Support. Image:Michelangelo Caravaggio 038.jpg had a resolution of 2024 by 2659 pixels, whereas Image:Caravaggio-Crucifixion of Peter.jpg only has a resolution of 618 by 800 pixels. In my opinion, it also has much better colouration, particularly in the shadows. It appears Siebrand acted at the request of Shakko. I'll ask both users to comment. Since the two images are not exact duplicates, I think neither should be deleted, but the currently deleted one may be the preferred one to use. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done I have undeleted the image and asked commons delinker to use the better resolutioned one. The deletion of the otherone will have to go though COM:DEL as it isn't an exact duplicate. -- Cat ちぃ？ 22:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

deleted again for the third second times by User:ChristianBier and User:White Cat.

id:User:Bennylin 03:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did NOT delete it. I Undeleted it. -- Cat ちぃ？ 04:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
MY apology, i didn't read the log carefully. id:User:Bennylin


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

Orba Squara[edit]

Why collection "Orba Squara" was deleted? —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.121.91.249 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was empty, because both images in it were deleted. The images were deleted because neither the DVD cover nor the song text are free. --rimshottalk 14:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done —LX (talk, contribs) 21:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

Image:AWBLog.png[edit]

Following discussion at Commons talk:Licensing this was deleted for having parts of the Windows interface in it. Didn't Apple v. Microsoft establish that the functional aspects of an OS's look and feel was PD-ineligible? -Nard 17:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Support undeletion. I support deleting or cropping images which show elements of Microsoft Windows more elaborately designed than the window decorations used in Microsoft Windows 98, 2000 and older, but this image was cropped not to show anything but square pushbuttons and tabs, which are simple geometric figures. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Long undeleted and the discussion at Commons talk:Licensing has gone dormant. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 04:26, 30 December 2007 (GMT)

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

Kord (band)[edit]

The article Kord (band) was wrongly deleted. The article contained notable content and had reliable sources in the article which i've verified. Restore this article! The band Kord had a charted hit in a national chart. One of the members was a part of a notable artist Nicoleta Alexandru and Kord were invited for few times for more then a half an hour in tv shows of a national broadcast tv. They were in playlist of important radios and that'some of motive that they should be appear in Wikipedia. So, please restore the article ! —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 91.168.218.250 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

there was never such a page. Regards, __ ABF __ ϑ 20:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Nothing to undelete. Commons does not host articles, as that is outside its project scope. You may be looking for en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kord (band). —LX (talk, contribs) 21:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note, the article was previously hosted on the English Wikipedia, but was deleted after a Request for Deletion which can be found here. If you wish to request the article is undeleted, you will need to file a request for a deletion review, and your request for undeletion will be reviewed by the community. If you require assistance in doing this, please don't hesitate to contact me at My talk page and I'll help organise a deletion review. Nick 23:01, 29 December 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.

Herskalverafjor.jpg[edit]

This is not a copyright violation because I myself am the creator of the cover. Ogkelt 15:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm? It is your album? Then its possibly I misunderstood you. Please tell a bit more what it is. __ ABF __ ϑ 15:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is the cover of an album that my band, Danssveit Jóhanns og Ólafs, made in May 2007. The copyright was ours, and we hereby release it under the selected licence. Ogkelt 15:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done sorry, it seems to be my fault. __ ABF __ ϑ 15:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

Martin Luther King, Jr.[edit]

Page appears mischeiviously deleted. Why deleted ??? CORRECTION -- REPORT WAS PROMPTED BY THIS BAD LINK ... http://www.flickr.com/photos/anomalous/446343686 ... TO A MODIFED VERSION OF MLK PHOTO, WELL DESCRIBED by Wikipedia

Public Domain source image: Martin Luther King Press Conference by Marion S. Trikosko, March 26, 1964 (Library Of Congress)

Public Domain. Suggested credit: Trikosko/Library of Congress [VIA PINGNEWS]. Additional information from source: No known restrictions on publication. http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=507645615&size=o

________________________ This comment pertains to:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr Linked from page referring to an image like that above... Suggested credit: Martin Luther King Press Conference by Marion S. Trikosko, March 26, 1964 (Library Of Congress)

Martin Luther King, Jr From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository Jump to: navigation, search This page does not currently exist. You can search for this page title in other pages or create this page. It is possible this page once existed but was deleted. You may wish to check the activity logs for this page.. NO - I DO_NOT NOW think this file was incorrectly deleted, ... undeletion IRRELEVANT.

_______________________________

What I want you to do ... for YOUR OWN DOCUMENTATION/verification OF SOURCE: PLEASE CROSS-CHECK THIS WIKIPEDIA SOURCE ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Martin-Luther-King-1964-leaning-on-a-lectern.jpg

AGAINST THIS CROSS-REFERENCE IN WHICH THE PHOTGRAPHER IS IDENTIFIED AS ABOVE

... http://www.flickr.com/photos/pingnews/507645615/ ...

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=507645615&size=1 CONSIDER ADDING THIS DOCUMENTATION AS ABOVE

ADD: "Martin Luther King Press Conference, photo by Marion S. Trikosko, March 26, 1964 (Library Of Congress)"

______________ Posted here to: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Martin_Luther_King.2C_Jr.

—the preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.108.42.180 (talk • contribs) 09:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was never a page named Martin_Luther_King,_Jr . There is a page named Martin Luther King, Jr. (note the full stop). It has never been deleted. Image:Martin-Luther-King-1964-leaning-on-a-lectern.jpg, which is the same image as http://www.flickr.com/photos/pingnews/507645615/, does appear on that page. It has also never been deleted. What is it you want us to do? —LX (talk, contribs) 10:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Irrelevant 哦，是吗？(O-person) 22:48, 07 January 2008 (GMT)

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

Cassius Coolidge works are no longer copyrighted[edit]

Cassius Coolidge works are no longer copyright protected.

[5]

The artist died in 1934 and therefore his works are no longer copyright protected. (Copyrights last for a maximum of 70 years.)

You might add a feature where artists who are known not to be copyright protected, are automatically protected from deletion requests.

For example, quite a few of the older Picasso's are no longer copyright protected (those older than 70 years old, 1937, which was when Picasso was 56 years of age), and yet you have a policy of excluding all Picasso content.

Please allow this older content in. —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.197.102.27 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately you are wrong that works older than 70 years are not protected by copyright. Copyright lasts until 70 years after the death of the author; not the publication. As for Cassius Coolidge, he is an American, which makes it a little bit more complicated. All his works from before 1923 are public domain. All works from after may or may not be public domain, but are likely to be so. No definite answer I guess. -- Bryan (talk to me) 22:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well His Station and 4 Aces is PD as it is from 1903. What was the link? Yann 15:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is indeed a good chance that the famous Dogs Playing Poker paintings are indeed PD, even in the U.S. According to [6], "Coolidge's first customers were cigar companies that printed copies of the paintings for giveaways. Coolidge eventually signed a contract with Brown & Bigelow to turn out hundreds of thousands of copies of his dog paintings for advertising posters, calendars, and prints." Hence there's a fair chance that these paintings were not only created before 1923, but also published before 1923. Lupo 23:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please list the specific files you wish to have undeleted, or this request will be closed shortly. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done 哦，是吗？(O-person) 03:44, 09 January 2008 (GMT)


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

Cat Fletcher.jpg[edit]

This image is a self made image taken with using a time release function with a Canon 35mm film camera. —the preceding unsigned comment was added by Cartof (talk • contribs) 16:02, 20 November 2007

 Comment See also Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Cat Fletcher.jpg. Lupo 16:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody seems to want to take action on this (myself included). Do you have any more information that might help substantiate your claims? This would help, especially if you've made uploads with incorrect authorship information in the past. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done 哦，是吗？(O-person) 03:47, 09 January 2008 (GMT)


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

Image:Ejaculation.jpg[edit]

Reason: faulty argument in deletion request. Image was not the same. If the content of the image was the real reason for deletion, all images of this nature should be subjected for voting.


http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Ejaculation.jpg

>> reuploaded by same user after previous delete vote http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2005/09#Image:Ejaculation.jpg -N 15:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richiex (talk • contribs) at 10:45, 31 Dec 2007 (UTC)

Again I am happy that this remains undeleted - as the original uploader of this and a number of other deleted picture on the same & related subjects your comments may not be entirely unbiased --Herby talk thyme 09:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Almost entirely deleted pictures are deleted by admins without voting and thus against wikimedia policies. As an admin user Herbythyme is probably more biased in this issue. Richiex 10:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done 哦，是吗？(O-person) 03:49, 09 January 2008 (GMT)

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

Image:Male_genitalia_development.jpg[edit]

Reason: There were no relevant arguments, only two inappropriate comments. It should be apparent that the age of the model is not the issue. Matter-of-fact policy should be maintained in voting ja deletion policy and to not remove images used in projects w/o proper reasons.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Male_genitalia_development.jpg —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richiex (talk • contribs) at 11:05, 31 Dec 2007 (UTC)

  •  Oppose We don't need explicit pictures of underage genitalia with unknown source and no parental consent. If you want to show an underage penis, get it from an authoritative source (medical journal or somesuch). -Nard 15:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since when 29 years old person is considered as underaged? User Nard has expressed only rather naive arguments, no rational and objective ones. Image was used in at least one project. Support undeletion. Richiex 09:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot really "support" undeletion as you are the one who proposed the undeletion. Given the adequate quantity of male genitalia available to us I am happy with it remaining undeleted. --Herby talk thyme 09:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently quantity is everything that matters to user/admin Herbythyme. I'm amused about the triviality of these two preceding comments of this user.Richiex 10:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The age was explicitly said in the beginning of the summary of this image. This shouldn't never have been an issue.
>> ... of this 29 years old male ... << Richiex 12:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done 哦，是吗？(O-person) 03:41, 09 January 2008 (GMT)


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

Image:Iron Age Italy.png[edit]

Please undelete Image:Iron Age Italy.png, as User:Dbachmann drew it entirely himself; it was prematurely deleted per my no source tag. Superm401 - Talk 15:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done —LX (talk, contribs) 16:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

Image:CSK_20_1988_obverse.jpg[edit]

Kept at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:CSK 20 1988 obverse.jpg. Not a copyvio. -Nard 18:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

Photography Guide Project Alpha[edit]

I created a page titled "Photography Guide Project Alpha" (and its discussion page) for purposes of writing a Commons guide sharing photographic knowledge on various subjects. Unfortunately, this page had no media files on it yet and appears to be deleted. It should certainly have a lot of media files later on illustrating various subjects and techniques, but as this is rather new idea, this effort is still on stage where persons interested in writing sections are looked for. However, I think the foundation page is sorely needed, as without such page, sections are rather hard to divide between Commons contributors.

I was wondering if the page could be restored? After all, it took a while to write up the structure, which is now missing. And if the page cannot be created in name space where it was, could it be restored to another name space? Not having the page is rather inconveniet as invitation to participate to this guide, which should be very beneficial for the whole project, has already been sent to some 10-15 contributors who have provided the project with numerous QIs and FPs. --Thermos 03:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

actualização de GPS[edit]

Solicito o favor de me informar quais os trâmitos a seguir para actualizar o meu GPS.

Com os meus cumprimentos

Carlos Monteiro

—the preceding unsigned comment was added by Carlos Monteiro (talk • contribs) 14:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google translation of the above: "Could you please tell me which of the trâmitos below to update my GPS."
This does not seem to be an undeletion request. User:Carlos Monteiro does not have any deleted contributions. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Nothing done 哦，是吗？(O-person) 23:45, 15 January 2008 (GMT)

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

Undeletion request Image:Husky oczy 897.jpg[edit]

This was deleted as an apparent duplicate by User:Siebrand, it is was not an exact duplicate, it was the source image for Image:Siberian Husky heterchromia edit.jpg and is part of the QI archived discussion page. I requested an undeletion on User:Siebrand's page, but it languished there for 7 days before being archived. I now see that I hadn't linked through to the image properly on his page (left out the namespace prefix :-(, which probably explains why Siebrand didn't bother responding (a bit too busy perhaps). Anyone got time to look at this for me? Thanks :-) --Tony Wills 00:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. Not an exact duplicate. Useful for verifying the source information, for creating other versions while minimising generational compression, and for the completeness of the QI archives. Done "speedily" because I figured if Siebrand had any objections, they would have been raised on the user talk page. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Royal Standard of England.svg[edit]

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Royal Standard of England.svg image is without crown copyright should not have been deleted. --Barryob 03:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose According to the deletion request, the image is a modern rendition of the coat of arms and there is not evidence it would not be copyrighted. / Fred J (talk) 10:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done 哦，是吗？(O-person) 17:59, 21 January 2008 (GMT)

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

Image:CiD_screenshot.PNG[edit]

Composed of pd-ineligible elements. Should not have been deleted. Does contain a pop-up ad, but it consists entirely of the result of API calls, with no graphics. -Nard 17:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

("Oppose") Per the deletion request, it does contain the logo of internet explorer which is not free. Also, consensus right now appears to be that only the classical Windows interface is not copyright – the default Windows XP, and this popup of of that sort, is copyright (according to discussion). / Fred J (talk) 10:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Copyrighted 哦，是吗？(O-person) 17:54, 21 January 2008 (GMT)


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

File:Superpussie.jpg[edit]

File deleted without any warning nor explanation by Siebrand. IMO there's no reason to delete it. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted for this reason: Dupe of Image:Vertical clit hood piercing.jpg [7]
Fred J (talk) 10:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done The file was uploaded with a better descriptive name (Image:Vertical clit hood piercing.jpg), so undelete is not needed. But I agree with you, that Siebrand had give another/better explanation for the deletion. --GeorgHH • talk   10:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and he should also have informed the uploader (i.e. me!). Thanks for the explanation (I read the reason but I didn't understand it!) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 10:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Barack Obama portrait 2005.jpg[edit]

Speedy undeletion for "Image:Barack Obama portrait 2005.jpg"

It is a government work I wish to use and is in the public domain. —the preceding unsigned comment was added by Cquigley1980 (talk • contribs) 17 Jan 2008 @ 20:39

Not restored This was a private photograph loaned to the Senate website and was not eligible for public domain. Cary Bass demandez 20:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closed. -- Bryan (talk to me) 09:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

Image:Too_hot.jpg[edit]

Deleted while the deletion request didn't have a majority of pro-deletion (yet). The admin who deleted it just had his own opinion, which is not superior to others' opinions. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete. Agree. -- Bryan (talk to me) 11:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A deletion request is to discuss about deleting, not to vote about deletion. A majority must not be given to delete a file. An admin is free to decision making after consideration the given arguments in the deletion debate, and ABF has explained his decision. --GeorgHH • talk   12:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with GeorgHH (and ABF). Remain deleted --Herby talk thyme 12:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's not a vote but I consider ABF's decision is too partial, especially because ABF completely ignored the fact that this picture is a work by a relatively reknown artist. As a work of this artist, this file has to be kept. No matter personal tastes. And no matter the supposed absence of other possible use of this picture (an argument that I clearly disagree with). One might say we have enough works by Klashorst but this would not be an acceptable argument IMO because the choice of which works to keep and to delete would be a non neutral choice, i.e. contrary to the rules of Wikimedia. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yea I can understand your point.
Personally I also think the image should be kept, there could be a use for an at least somewhat professionally looking photo of female genitalia , it could weigh up all horribly look penis-photos.... / Fred J (talk) 00:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I want to note that the closer of the discussion has participated in the discussion, which should not happen. I've undeleted the file and relisted it on DR. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 02:59, 22 January 2008 (GMT)

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

Image:Microcline_variety_Amazonite_Potassium_aluminum_silicate_Klienspitzkoppe_Area,_Nambia_2846.jpg[edit]

A perfectly good, freely licensed image that was deleted merely because someone didn't like it. See Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Microcline variety Amazonite Potassium aluminum silicate Klienspitzkoppe Area, Nambia 2846.jpg. -Nard 17:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think they had a very good reason not to like it. When it comes to usability, it's like using a satellite picture to depict a person. Samulili 18:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete. This had nothing to do with copyright problems and thus consensus should be followed. -- Bryan (talk to me) 11:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with undelete, the picture is perfectly usable. Are we to keep only QI and FP in the future? Patrícia msg 09:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2008-01&oldid=113104031"