Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2008-03

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:20050429-2230UTC.ogg[edit]

Deleted as no permission, however it is an audio wikinews file, and all audio wikinews files of that time were public domain. Bawolff 00:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Undeleted. --Boricuæddie 12:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Gallery stub[edit]

This template was deleted by User:ChristianBier with really no explanation as to why. It was being used in the Death and state funeral of Ronald Reagan page (among others), as I am currently looking for images to expand the section. I found the template beneficial and see no reason why it should be deleted. Thanks, Happyme22 05:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was a redirect. Can't you just use Template:Gallery stub/en instead? ++Lar: t/c 00:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Er, duh... That was deleted too. I suggest you ask ChristianBier to explain why, but ya, absent a reason, it seems like the /en one should be undeleted. As well as any other langs. ++Lar: t/c 00:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, should not have been deleted without a proper discussion, we only need to speedy delete copyvios, what was the rush? --Tony Wills 23:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I asked Christian to take a look at this undeletion request. Patrícia msg 09:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I try to explain why I have deleted this template. The Template was used 4 times. 3 times with a clear nonsense in Category-descriptions and one time in Death and state funeral of Ronald Reagan. In my opinion no template for this reason and no cat for collecting such pages is needed. In every other case we delete templates without usage or which are useless, or delete categories which are empty, why not in this case? ChristianBier 09:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My question would then be, how long ago was this template created? If we delete new innovations before they have time to be used, tested, and enhanced then we stagnate. Presumably every new template etc starts off with a single usage :-). If this was created a long time ago (months at least) and no one else saw it as useful then deletion might well be sensible, but even then, a discussion with the author is appropriate (why the rush to delete?), and a normal deletion process if they wish to retain it but in your opinion it should still go. --Tony Wills 20:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was created on 2006-12-04. I agree that it was not useful. Tagging articles as short never helped Wikipedia and has only made it look like early nineties Geocities webpages with animated GIFs of stick figure construction workers and the text "this page is under construction". Let's not import this. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My interest was about process, your points maybe valid, but all except the first are really matters of opinion - matters to go in a deletion discussion :-). Your first point (the creation date) does answer one of my questions - ok, it had been created over a year ago, and not adopted. So no one else saw it as useful. A good candidate for deletion.
But I suggest that such things should not be deleted on the judgement of a single admin without discussion. If the contributor/user/author is still active here, it would seem reasonable to at least let them know of our view and go to a normal deletion process if they object. --Tony Wills 10:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that things like this should go the normal DR, but sometimes it's unnecessary. Sometimes admins should make judgments on the spot like ChristianBier did, which I support in this case. I think the consensus is that we don't want the stub system here and ChristianBier read it right without a DR. And it seemed pretty inactive. - Rocket000 04:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Stale 哦，是吗？(O-person) 03:06, 05 March 2008 (GMT)


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

Image:Crochets modèle.png.svg[edit]

Few days ago, the image Image:Crochets modèle.png.svg was deleted because it had no license, permission or source (but it was very probably an SVG version of Image:Crochets modèle.png). This image is included on several pages of the French-language Wikipedia. Could the deleted image be verified, and, if applicable, be undeleted, and a correct licence, permission or source be added to it? —C.P. 22:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This image is different from Image:Crochets modèle.png and a different user claims authorship. We can't do anything unless the user (User:Ljfa-ag) comes forward with a license. --Boricuæddie 23:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To revert my previous replacement, my bot "Le Pied-bot" has replaced all instance of Image:Crochets modèle.png.svg by Image:Crochets modèle.png on fr.wikipedia. Cordialy, Educa33e 19:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No licence, source, and/or permission has been provided since, and this request has gone stale;  Not done 哦，是吗？(O-person) 04:37, 05 March 2008 (GMT)


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

Image:Nice crispy skin.jpg[edit]

My photo: "Nice Crispy Skin" depicting a roasted lamb, was deleted from the "mechoui" entry. I am the author of the photo, I've posted it on my own web site www.mechoui.com and I wanted to attach it to the French Wiki entry (which I wrote for the most part). Please reinstate that photo. If there are any further questions, I'll be glad to answer. André Piquet apiquet@comcast.net Thank you. —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 98.210.188.213 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 19. Feb. 2008

The image was missing a copyright tag. Please say here which license you wish to add, then the image will be undeleted. --GeorgHH • talk   17:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've yet again deleted the file and protected it from recreation until the sufficient source/licence/permission information arrives. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 03:18, 25 February 2008 (GMT)

Now at Image:Mechoui.jpg with sufficient information. No need for any further action. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 04:40, 05 March 2008 (GMT)


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

Image:AisleyneHorganWallace.jpg[edit]

I am the administrator at www.aisleyne.com the copyright holders of the image. Could someone please explain how the picture was a copyright violation —the preceding unsigned comment was added by Premierscfc (talk • contribs) 14:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please proof that your the copyright holder of the work by sending an email to the OTRS-Team. Thanks. →Christian.И 16:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
email sent as requested →Premierscfc.И

Restored. →Christian.И 18:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Before I am banned[edit]

I just wanted to let the guardians of wikipedia know about this: Commons_talk:Licensing#User:Cecil_bot before I am banned. What a ridiculous state that wikipedia has came too. As I mentioned in my message, anyone with half a brain can realize that these images are from the late 1800s. I refuse to waste my time satisfying laymen policemen/wikilawyers, like Cecil who probably have zero legal background and add little value to the wikipedia projects. Odessaukrain 17:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not Wikipedia, and this page is for requesting undeletion of deleted files, not for conducting personal attacks. Once your block expires, please provide source information for each deleted image. They stand a good chance of being undeleted if you use your energy to provide information about where you got them rather than to throw temper tantrums. That kind of hostility is the real waste of time here. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User blocked by Herby for one week. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 15:24, 09 March 2008 (GMT)

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

Noctivagus: a referência[edit]

Inspirados pela beleza nocturna e pôr todo o seu imaginário de contornos apocalípticos de caos e visões futuristas . os Noctívagus buscam o “Espirito Sentido” que pode ser gélido como abrasador .” fogueira no frio da paixão” .( talvez? Eles buscam...) .mas nunca indiferente na tentativa de libertar o mundo dos sonhos da tirania do conformismo. é no palco que a banda encontra a sua máxima expressão, provocando uma magnética simbiose.

Discography: Almas Ocultas(K7) Fanzine Entulho informativo (1995) "Crime No Paraiso" (compilation) enochian Calls 1996 "Imenso" background records 1998 "After The Curse" Floyd Records 2003 "Bad dreams " (compilation) Rock Sound 2004 "Transmisson" (compilation)Tomb Factory 2005

This isn't an undeletion request. --rimshottalk 13:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Samtgemeinde Herzlake.png[edit]

It was my own woek, if i forgot permission or source:

Description
Deutsch: Gliederung der Samtgemeinde Herzlake. – Ortsteile: Lähden, Herzlake, Dohren
Source Own work
Author Andi69
Permission
(Reusing this file)		 GFDL

--Andi69 23:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done --Kjetil_r 00:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Why was Kelly Madison 8.jpg deleted but the others kept[edit]

Please undelete Kelly Madison 8.jpg as its current state breaks the smooth progression of images

It's still there. It was never deleted, as far as I can tell. --rimshottalk 21:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


weird maybe my pc is messing up.

 Nothing to undelete 哦，是吗？(O-person) 23:18, 12 March 2008 (GMT)

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

Image:Hk1946typhoonsignal.jpg[edit]

The main reason of deletion(the reason from Gisling) is proved misleading by the Wikipedians in Hong Kong. So according to the result of voting, this image should be kept.--華德禹 14:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: Picture taken from [1] clear violation of copyright notice]--Gisling 08:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't matter. I could put a big copyright notice on the alphabet but I wouldn't own it. They can't copyright something if it's too old...but we don't know for sure how old it is. -Nard 14:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep, I think it's just a deletion caused by misuderstanding. Here's the news story about the typhoon happened more than 100 years ago. Stewart~惡龍 15:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 Oppose We can't assume the year of creation of the photo since the website doesn't say. It is probable the image is PD, but someone should verify this. -Nard 17:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. According to Mingpao's news on 2006-09-23 - Ref, the image is one of the photo captured in "丙午風災" (The Typhoon of 18 September 1906, while "丙午" refers to 1906, it's a Chinese sexagenary cycle, changing in every 60 years; "風災" means typhoon here. ). As the result, the website - weather.gov.hk, though, claimed that all photos are protected by copyright and haven't noticed that the photo is about a typhoon happened on 1906, the photo should still be treated as free to use under Section 17 in Chapter 528 of the Law of the Hong Kong SAR as it is in accordance with public domain such like the text stated on Template:PD-HK.Stewart~惡龍 23:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Which licence? Public domain, Creative Commons, GNU FDL, or something? If the media is not covered by one of the accepted licences, the file cannot be undeleted. 哦，是吗？(О кириллицей) 02:33, 15 March 2008 (GMT)
It would be PD-HK, if old enough.--Nilfanion 13:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose undeletion. There is no date of photo taken, you said it was about 1906(according to [2], there was no No10 signal before 1931), the original uploader claimed it was a photo of July 18 of 1946, I said it was taken after 1973. So here we are again, 1906? 1946 ? 1973? None of the above dates have valid proof, mere personal claim or conjecture. Why don't you guys asked uploader provide the URL link to the said Ming Pao website whick stated the date
July 18, 1948. Is this much simpler than wild goose chase by conjecturing what date that photo was taken ? I posted a notice for deletion at his talk page on Mar 11, no response since. I don't know why he is playing hide and seek, and let others argue for him. --Gisling 23:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
There is one important issue I must point out. In the above quoted Ming Pao news, Ming Pao clearly stated "Picture supplied by HK Observatory", meaning HK Observatory holds the copyright, and Ming Pao got the permission to publish it.--Gisling 01:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: According to the news article, althoguh no date is specified, HKO admitted that "the photo was very old so the record of the details of the photo no longer exists already". From this statement, we can believe that the photo was taken in pre-war period (before 1941), or a few year post-war (late 1940s, so 1946 is one of the possible years). Therefore, the photo is not possible to be taken within 50 years (1958 or after). Moreover, HKO cannot hold the copyright if the photo was taken more than 50 years ago (Please refer to Template:PD-HK). (Think in another way round: It is not possible for HKO to hold the copyright FOREVER when they have lost the record of the details of the photo, is it?) -- Kevinhksouth 03:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: my guess of post 1973 is an opinion, you guess of late 1940s is still an opinion, not hard fact. --Gisling 08:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
 Keep, it is just a misunderstanding. --202.40.137.199 06:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: Picture taken from [3] clear violation of copyright notice] no miisunderstanding--Gisling 08:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: Do you mean that "since HKO cannot provide the date of the photo-taking, they can hold the photo's copyright forever, and the photo can never be allowed to go to PD"? -- Hargau 09:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Has anyone actually tried to contact the HKO? They should be able to say when the picture was, which in turn will say if it is PD or not. (I'm doing this). Both September 18 1906 and July 18 1948 are plausible dates but there is no concrete proof given. Therefore there is insufficient source information.--Nilfanion 13:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Underground.svg[edit]

This is actually me appealing a keep decision. See Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Underground.svg. At least one other person, if you look at the history of the image, agrees with me. This is by no means public domain, and it's not that simple. I don't understand how we can determine this is public domain, while 4 yellow pips is considered intellectual property. Patstuart (talk) 17:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should be appealing 4 yellow pips rather than trying to make a point, or ridding us of trivial designs. A circle with a line through it is fairly trivial ;-) --Tony Wills 00:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not making a point. This logo appears to be too specific for the average person to come up with it randomly, and thus would fail the copyright violation test. Patstuart (talk) 23:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does it really take a genius to join a circle with a rectangle? --Boricuæddie 02:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A circle with a rectangle through it is clearly public domain. A circle with a line through it with more than a couple of letters on it using a specific colour scheme and with a typeface designed specifically for the purpose (which itself is owned by the same body), in a design which has evolved over the course of its use is clearly sufficient creativity for copyright protection. Since at the time the logo was adopted the Underground was not in public ownership, the provisions of Crown Copyright do not apply - the logo in its current form was created in 1919 by Edward Johnston, who was not at the time employed by the company. Copyright on both the design and the typeface therefore will not expire until 27 November 2014 at the earliest. 81.110.106.169 15:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Worth noting that Image:Underground_no-text.svg is a suitable replacement which is actually {{PD-ineligible}}. 81.110.106.169 16:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The addition of simple text (and it is very simple) does not make something eligible for copyright. - Rocket000 04:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to do. Also not the place to appeal a keep decision. 哦，是吗？(О кириллицей) 15:51, 16 March 2008 (GMT)


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

Image:A certificate for the electoral vote for George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney for the State of Colorado dated 2004.jpg[edit]

I believe the Image Image:A certificate for the electoral vote for George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney for the State of Colorado dated 2004.jpg is a public record thereby public domain.

1 The certificate is the actual Votes of the State of Colorado for President and Vice President in 2004
2 Position of electors of President and Vice President (the people who sign the certificate) was created by Provisions of the US Constitution and United States Code
3 The Image is from The U.S. National Archives and Records Administration web site Image
4 Title 3 United States Code § 11 States:
Disposition of certificates
§ 11. The electors shall dispose of the certificates so made by them and the lists attached thereto in the following manner:
First. They shall forthwith forward by registered mail one of the same to the President of the Senate at the seat of government.
Second. Two of the same shall be delivered to the secretary of state of the State, one of which shall be held subject to the order of the President of the Senate, the other to be preserved by him for one year and shall be a part of the public records of his office and shall be open to public inspection.
Third. On the day thereafter they shall forward by registered mail two of such certificates and lists to the Archivist of the United States at the seat of government, one of which shall be held subject to the order of the President of the Senate. The other shall be preserved by the Archivist of the United States for one year and shall be a part of the public records of his office and shall be open to public inspection.
Fourth. They shall forthwith cause the other of the certificates and lists to be delivered to the judge of the district in which the electors shall have assembled.

I am no law experts however I believe the Image Image:A certificate for the electoral vote for George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney for the State of Colorado dated 2004.jpg Should be Undele --Lookatthis 21:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what that certificate is, but note that being in the public record does not mean that the Item was necessarily in the "public domain". See en:WP:PD#Public records. It may be PD for other reasons, though (USGov work?) Lupo 09:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, now that I've actually looked at this: it appears to be a work of the state of Colorado. So no USGov... Lupo 22:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the source website and every state has their own version...pity. I doubt the people that produce this stuff are even aware there's a problem...they put it out in the public without stating a license. It could be pd-ineligible, though. -Nard 22:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is a Wikiproblem the certificate has the Colorado State Seal on it just like the certificate from ever state has its State Seal however the people who sign the certificate were at the time electors of President and Vice President acting as electors of President and Vice President a position created by Provisions of the US Constitution and United States Code. The image in question is not a State Tour Guide, a building on the LSU campus, a state ID, a diploma, Etc. all of which maybe copyright. It is the actual Votes of the State of Colorado for President and Vice President in 2004 It helped keep someone in in the White House. I believe it is public domain. --Lookatthis 21:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is irrelevant. The only relevancy in this case is who created it and what licence the creator will license the content under. To even get a possibility of having a free licence for this content, there needs to be permission sent to OTRS. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 04:46, 05 March 2008 (GMT)
The certificate was created by the electors of President and Vice President who where an "officer or employee of the U.S. government" and the certificate was created "as part of that person's[thier] official duties."--Lookatthis 16:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. After looking through this myself, this was definitely not created by the federal government. If anything were, the item would have a federal government seal somewhere, where this does not. The person who tagged this as a copyvio made it pretty clear. 哦，是吗？(О кириллицей) 16:51, 18 March 2008 (GMT)

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

Image:Manoppello and Turin shroud.jpg[edit]

14:29, 5 February 2008 Cecil (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Manoppello and Turin shroud.jpg" ‎(no permission)

I can't understand why that one was deleted, as other projects were using it just fine. Copyright on the originals is absolutely out of the question. Furthermore, various monastic orders generally do not enforce copyright on works created by their members, and they themselves hold no financial ownership of them (having renounced that in their vows).

✓ Undeleted. There isn't copyright on the shroud of Turin, but a photograph of it most likely is copyrighted. I looked at the deleted description and everything looked in order (it evens says permission was given). I see no reason this had to be deleted, but if someone thinks there is, a DR would be better. - Rocket000 04:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

Cripta of Salerno Cathedral[edit]

Please read [4] for explanations about what is happening with my digital photo of the Cripta. I am new to Commons so I hope the administrators can understand my mistake in reloading for the third time (now the cripta image is in Image:ThirdCripta.JPG). Sincerely.--BDA 23:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LX made a pretty clear explanation at Commons talk:Licensing/Archive 10#Disappearance of digital photo of "Cripta".  Not done 哦，是吗？(О кириллицей) 03:40, 17 March 2008 (GMT)


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

Image:Tecnun miramon.jpg and Image:Tecnun ibaeta.jpg[edit]

Hi, I need to recover these pictures, I don't know why they were deleted, since they had the license. Thanks, --Epiovesan 01:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Undeleted. They did indeed have licenses. As to if they are valid is a different matter. - Rocket000 04:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Re-deleted That's called copyfraud and we don't like it. So much for AGF. - Rocket000 04:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

Image:Camiseta Alianza.JPG deleted for no reason[edit]

The picture of the file 'Image:Camiseta Alianza.JPG' was take by me with my camera, and later I modify it with photoshop. The license is correct, but one day I saw that the picture was deleted. So I'm here to ask if someone can recover it, because sadly I don't have the picture anymore.

Thanks

Dierato

PS: for more details, watch this [5] and [6]. By the way, the other pictures that appears in the page are correctly deleted, the only picture that I take was 'Image:Camiseta Alianza.JPG', and I think I must recover it.

The shirt is copyrighted, this doesn't change if you take a picture of it. --rimshottalk 08:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, why in this file for example: Imagen:Juan_Krupoviesa.jpg the player in the picture is using a shirt that I suppose is copyrighted too. So, I don't know where's the difference.

Dierato

The photo of the player is different in two regards. (1) less importantly: it doesn't show any logos; (2) more importantly: it is not primarily a picture of a football shirt, but a picture of a football player. --rimshottalk 21:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, what about this picture? 'Imagen:Humberto_Suazo.jpg' I can see many logos from here. I can show you a lot of more examples. The only difference is that my picture only shows the shirt, and in the other one the player is using it. The fact that the player uses the shirt is sooo important?

Dierato

It does make a difference, yes. --rimshottalk 16:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here's one picture of another peruvian team, 'Imagen:Camisetacrema.jpg' and here there's no player using it, is only the shirt like my picture, with logos. So I think the license of my photo is correct.

Dierato


there's two that one exists but the other was deleted. —the preceding unsigned comment was added by Dragonstar (talk • contribs) 15:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point anyway?

Dierato —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.230.235.6 (talk • contribs) 03:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, somebody can recover the picture? because the license it's correct.

Dierato

As I tried to explain above, the license most probably is not correct. The fact that other, similar, images exist does not change that. I will wait for some more input before closing this request, as I'm too involved in the discussion by now. --rimshottalk 22:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you temporarily undelete it to allow a third party to see it? -Nard 22:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly --rimshottalk 11:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see much there you can copyright, some text in a general font and some color variations which may be copyrightable. Could I request converting this from a speedy deletion to a normal deletion and let consensus decide (since a lot of people don't watch UDEL)? -Nard 12:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as N said, there's no much copyrightable material. I see that you recover the picture, thanks for that, but I know is temporary. What I was trying to say is why if another picture just like mine exists, why my picture doesn't. Normal deletion is good for me while this discussion resolves.

Dierato

To make this more visible, I've opened a regular deletion request. --rimshottalk 17:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

Image:WelcometoIsraHELL.gif[edit]

As far as I could tell this was a sneak deletion. The image wasn't tagged (I might be wrong). The deletion reason is bogus as it's a free image within project scope. // Liftarn 02:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to comment on the image, but the deletion process here was less than satisfactory. The image page was never tagged for deletion (because it was protected the same day due to edit-warring). Only the uploader (who was informed) commented on the deletion request. There was a discussion taking place on the talk page during this time. I'm sure others would have commented if they knew about it given the controversial nature of it. Also, I see no consensus whatsoever. Only the nominator and uploader commented/voted (and in opposition to each other). While the deletion request was open for 7 days (and 2 hours), when it comes to images like this it's best to wait for more input. Especially since it was not too long ago kept per an overwhelmingly unanimous vote. I strongly support undeletion (but because of my past involvement I won't act myself). - Rocket000 04:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Support undeletion per existing consensus in Commons:Deletion requests/Inappropriate cartoons. The only response to the deletion request opposed deletion, but it was apparently dismissed without rebuttal. I notice that Videmus Omnia has been notified of this undeletion request, so I'll leave it deleted for now pending further comments. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Commons:Deletion requests/Inappropriate cartoons only deals with a collective deletion of all the Latuff stuff as a mass group, and would not necessarily prevent the deletion of any one specific Latuff image nominated individually. I would probably weakly support the deletion of this particular image, but I have to agree that it's kind of fishy that the usual notifications were not carried out... AnonMoos 15:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Restored 哦，是吗？(О кириллицей) 01:52, 18 March 2008 (GMT)

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

Image:cd51-1003g.gif[edit]

Hi, I'm sorry about the problem with the copyright. This war a relict from the start period of my homepage and I don't pay attention about this until now. But now the problem is solved. From now I use the copyright only for the Gallery part of my homepage. For all the other pages I use now the GNU-License. I hope this is ok now.

best regards boris—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mycdes (talk • contribs) at 20:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done and your requested licence applied 哦，是吗？(О кириллицей) 01:48, 18 March 2008 (GMT)

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

A few images deleted by Stahlkocher[edit]

The following images of well-known racing drivers were deleted by User:Stahlkocher before he was desysopped. The deletion reason "personality rights" sounds bogus.

Prolog 19:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done abf /talk to me/ 19:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Flag of NATO.svg[edit]

I cannot comprehend why this was speedy deleted. Was NATO ever contacted to release the image with a free license? Has a single person but the nominator comment? No? What is the hurry?

I propose a speedy undelete (it has been undeleted so it can be moved to en.wiki, and then redeleted). I also suggest a rehash of the discussion if thats necesary at all.

-- Cat ちぃ？ 21:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

 Oppose undeletion. It is clear that the image is not meant to be used commercially. Therefore, we cannot host it. Anyway, the rule generally is get permission first and upload later. --Boricuæddie 22:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Same was the case with the UN flag. This was discussed to death. -- Cat ちぃ？ 20:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 Oppose undeletion. Copyvios or potential copyvios are not good to keep around. It's not our job to ask for images to be released with a free license. Like Eddie said, that should be done before uploading. However, undeleting it temporarily for en.WP shouldn't be an issue. (Let me know if you want to move it.) - Rocket000 04:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind it looks like it was moved twice already... - Rocket000 04:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It may be a valid deletion argument, not a speedy deletion one. -- Cat ちぃ？ 20:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, yes it is. The image was in violation of our policies (COM:L) and of the author's copyright. Therefore, the speedy deletion is justified. --Boricuæddie 22:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Correct (see COM:DG#Speedy deletion). This is nothing even remotely unique. There are hundreds of copyright violations uploaded and speedily deleted every day. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Maybe not sufficiently creative to be copyrighted. According to the NATO the design of which was a white and blue compass on a dark blue background. The compass element is quite common I think. -- Bryan (talk to me) 16:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking that too... but I really don't feel like going through one of those discussion again. :) - Rocket000 05:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Stale 哦，是吗？(О кириллицей) 18:47, 22 March 2008 (GMT)

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

Image:Echowall.jpg[edit]

The uploader on en.wiki logged in and added licensing[7] -Nard 12:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Licence updated 哦，是吗？(О кириллицей) 18:52, 22 March 2008 (GMT)

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

Image:R2-KT fan.jpg[edit]

This picture was published under a free licence by "Official Star Wars Blog". Please, pay attencion to the word "OFFICIAL". If it is an OFFICIAL site it means that Lukas Film know about it and accepted what they do. Follow this: if there is no objection of Lukas Film and they published that photo under a free licence it means that have rigts to do this and Lucas Film acceped this licence indirectly. For example a one of parts of this blog is "The 501st Legion" They have such statement:

"The 501st Legion is a worldwide Star Wars costuming organization comprised of and operated by Star Wars fans. While it is not sponsored by Lucasfilm Ltd., it is Lucasfilm's preferred Imperial costuming group. Star Wars, its characters, costumes, and all associated items are the intellectual property of Lucasfilm. ©2006 Lucasfilm Ltd. & ™ All rights reserved. Used under authorization".

So if they published some photos under CC licence and it is "Used under authorization" it means that Lucas Films know about it, it has no objection and they have rights to do this.

It can't be a mistake because there on Flickr are meny more pictures uder CC licence published by "Official Star Wars Blog" and conected with "Star Wars" series.

Besides this, the main theme of this picture is not only the droids but a girl, too. Shes image belongs only for her. The picture was taken in a public place and we can consider that the "free panorama" law can be applied.

Regards Electron 07:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'd better check those assumptions with Lucasfilm first. I really don't think Lucasfilm has authorised some fanclub, official as they've dubbed themselves, to speak on their behalf on copyright matters. I don't know what's more unlikely–that they would relinquish the rights to their copyrighted characters or that they would approve violations of Comedy Central's copyright. The former is at least dismissed by the fact that the statement "All rights reserved" directly contradicts the {{CC-by-2.0}} licence.
You wouldn't use the image to illustrate "girls", you'd use it to illustrate the copyrighted Star Wars character. Its appearance in the image certainly isn't de minimis. The US does not have any real freedom of panorama (other than for buildings, to some limited extent), and in countries that do have it, it usually applies to permanently installed works in public places (not venues with the right to refuse entry). —LX (talk, contribs) 21:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence at all that the owner of the copyright in the character, LucasFilms, has ever provided a release under any type of CC licence. Even if they have approved the fanclub site, the words "Used under authorization" mean just that - ie they have approved use of an image which includes their copyright character on that site. It certainly does not imply their approval of the image being lifted from there and re-posted here under a CC licence (which implies consent for commercial re-use, which they would never agree to in this context). See also User talk:MichaelMaggs#Image:R2-KT fan.jpg. --MichaelMaggs 22:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. But it is only speculation... I am speculating and you are specutating, too.
The facts are: 1. there are a fanclub, 3. the fan club claims that it is the Official Star Wars Blog 3. it published (on "Flickr") huge amount of photos conected with "Star Wars" saga under CC licence, 4. There are not real photos and materials which belons to LucasFilm in a stright way (e.g. photos from films), there are only photos that some of you can describe as a copy violation 5. LucasFilm doen't protest even it is very unlikely that it dosn't know about this behavior 6. We have no evidence that says something different. To sum up: I can assume that that claim is true.
Besides it is in LucasFilm own interes: they have free promotion of these movies and posibility to gain a crowd of new "believers". So they acceped that behavior.
I have found the photo on Flick with the CC statement (allmost all photos published by SW Blog have that licence) and I can suppose that they know better (than I and you) if thay really have that right or not and what they do. If they have no rigths to do such things it is their problem not my or yours. I and wiki are clear... Regards Electron 08:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Please confirm your assumptions with Lucasfilm first. Regardless of your hopes and dreams, it is unlikely that they would condone violating other companies copyright (see the Colbert Report screenshot) and approve a licence that would allow Disney to sell Star Wars merchandise without paying royalties. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no do doubts... It is you who have got them... The question is: who should move his b... to explain the things? You know and I know that it is very difficult to talk with a big company when you are nobody for it. And you know very good that it requarie a very big efort and long time... Besides my English is not briliant, I am afraid. Not good to correspond about the leagal metter. So if you are have a such big position on commons can you try yourselfe to make an effort to ask LucasFilm about your doubst? Or can you help me with this issue? Regards :) Electron 10:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As the uploader, it is your responsibility to provide verifiable evidence that the image is under a free licence. The evidence you have provided so far (that some fan club uploaded it to Flickr under a free licence along with unauthorised works from other authors also purported to be under a free licence) has failed to convince not only me but at least the two other editors (including one other administrator) who have acted in this matter. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for a help and such hospitality. Regards Electron 10:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Admins currently have a very large backlog of open deletion requests, files tagged for speedy deletion and other tasks in addition to the constant monitoring of new uploads. Requesting permission does not require administrative privileges, and most administrators will usually prioritise tasks that do. As much as we would like to help, we barely have the resources to deal with current tasks, let alone assisting everyone who wants to upload something with obtaining a permission. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence that the image(s) are free for commercial use and derivative works. 哦，是吗？(О кириллицей) 01:32, 26 March 2008 (GMT)


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

Image:Hassan Nasrallah.jpg[edit]

Hello! Someone was adding {{Copyright}} to Image:Hassan Nasrallah.jpg as copied from this website. Its original uploader was a user in English Wikipedia called "Wa3ad7". The summery was "www.wa3ad.org, Before attempting to delete or edit this file check my explaination on my user page. Thank you any questions email me at wa3ad7@gmail.com". So I think this image isn't copyrighted, It's a self-creation image. Be careful be for delete please ;)--OsamaK 10:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So en:User:Wa3ad7 is claiming that the content was produced by an editor of http://www.wa3ad.org (which one of them?), that Haitham Mussawi from AFP is fraudulently claiming authorship and that Getty Images are violating their copyright? —LX (talk, contribs) 12:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No idea, I've seen http://www.gettyimages.com today for first time..--OsamaK 13:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Getty Images is a little media repository that just sold for 2.4 billion US dollars, and AFP is the world's oldest news agency. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Stale 哦，是吗？(висчвын) 05:26, 26 March 2008 (GMT)


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

Image:Secretariat Kerala.jpg[edit]

Image:Secretariat Kerala.jpg Previously I'd uploaded it & deleted due to permission issues. However, I sent a request to the CEO & webmaster of the image website i.e www.globosapiens.net . CEO responded to my mail & forwarded the real member who uploaded it. The member sent me permission with a copy to the CEO and I subsequently forwarded it to OTRS now. Thanks. --avinj 14:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this page is for requesting undeletion, not for noting that you've recreated the image yourself (which you shouldn't do). In any case, do you have the OTRS ticket number?
Can someone with OTRS access verify the permission statement? —LX (talk, contribs) 16:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If possible, I just wanted to see the image as a complement to a post viewed in a forum about VGAs.

ya, it is ok now (resloved). --avinj 04:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS confirmed and undeleted some time ago. 哦，是吗？(О кириллицей) 01:35, 26 March 2008 (GMT)

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

Strizhi Aerobatic Team media[edit]

Hello, I am creator and owner of Strizhi.ru website. I am going to fill with related media this page, all the copyrights will be OK (it's mine).

Please proof that you're the copyright holder of the work by sending an email to the OTRS-Team. Some links to your deleted media would be also helpful. Thanks. →Christian.И 15:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No idea of what is to be undeleted.  Stale 哦，是吗？(О кириллицей) 01:16, 26 March 2008 (GMT)


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

Image:Ccfs.jpg[edit]

Ccfs.jpg

I created this picture for that school so I do hold the licence.

Krakazzz —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.220.120.27 (talk • contribs) 14:50, 5 March 2008

Please proof that you're the copyright holder of the work by sending an email to the OTRS-Team. Thanks. →Christian.И 15:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The supposed "picture" is a logo of a school, which has a legal notice stating full copyright. Furthermore, the same user uploaded Image:Logo-ccfs.jpg (an exact copy of the image requested for undeletion) which has been subsequently deleted. 哦，是吗？(О кириллицей) 01:24, 26 March 2008 (GMT)


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

Karl Benz and Bertha Benz deleted[edit]

Please restore the image link for Karl Benz and Bertha Benz at least.

The page for images for Karl Benz has been changed to Carl Benz even though our article is Karl Benz -- makes no sense to me.......... many of the images that had been available at Karl Benz are missing now

The link to images of Karl Benz (that was changed to Carl Benz) has been removed from the page for Karl Benz (? maybe for the obvious reason that it makes no sense to have images under one name and the article under another ?)

The link to Karl Benz and Bertha Benz inserted to provide access to some images for them, now has been deleted --

Why is this so crazy ?

How is the reader supposed to find images for Karl Benz or for Bertha Benz? —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.196.169.194 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 19. Mär. 2008

I see no reason to change gallery or category:
  • The images aren't missing: It's only one click at the link Category: Carl Benz at the bottom of gallery Carl Benz and all the images you think are missed will be displayed.
  • If you use the search with selection of only images and press the Search button instead of Go the result is eleven hits for "Karl Benz" and 38 for "Carl Benz"!
  • The different Wikipedias uses Carl Benz and Karl Benz one half each.
  • Finally: Have a look to the file names in Category:Carl Benz, you will see only two images with Karl in the name. --GeorgHH • talk   17:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This has already been addressed here. See Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2008-02#Karl and Bertha Benz. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done 哦，是吗？(О кириллицей) 01:26, 26 March 2008 (GMT)


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

Image:Status iucn3.1 LC es.svg[edit]

I dont know how to write the english very well, so please try to understand. The deletion of this image has a very important impact in our Wikipedia. This image and the following list are used very much in our taxoboxs.

I don't know the exactly reason of why this images were deleted, but the equivalent for others Wikipedias already exists, and all of them are almost the same. --Ninovolador 01:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like they were deleted because the method attempted for indicating the source and licensing of the image was a bit unorthodox and a bit lacking; it was done solely by including Template:Pengo IUCN/es, which at the time contained no source information and no information on copyright status or licensing. This was later added to the template, but the images would have appeared not to have been edited since they were tagged. The normal method for indicating authorship is to use the {{Information}} template with an officially recognised copyright tag. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Already undeleted with the original revision of the image. 哦，是吗？(О кириллицей) 01:29, 26 March 2008 (GMT)


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

Abdul Hamid(Manipuri Poet)[edit]

Undelete —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 77.110.107.244 (talk • contribs) 07:11, 25 March 2008

I guess you're on the wrong project (see Wikipedia deletion log). You may request the undeletion there. →Christian.И 09:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Nothing to undelete →Christian.И 09:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2008-03&oldid=113104145"