Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2008-05
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image was deleted by Maxim with the comment Deleted because "In category Unknown as of 27 April 2008; no license/permission/source. I'm mystified by this, as this was a photograph taken by me, and I certainly intended to include GFDL-self. I did receive a message on my talk page from filbot saying:
- There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful informations about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.
so I'm guessing that finger trouble lead to me selecting the wrong template. Please undelete and add GFDL-self. Thanks -- Chris j wood 04:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Done and done. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Deletion of Mithras.jpg[edit]
Dear Sir, Madame,
The file Mithras.jpg contained a drawing I made MYSELF. It illustrates the ritual sacrifice of the ancient white bull by the persian God of Light Mithras. I have drawn the picture myself and fherefore, no copyright is violated!
Please undelete this file!
Thanks and sincerely,
Ronald van Duijvenvoorde —Preceding unsigned comment added by RonWiki (talk • contribs) 09:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- The image is not deleted. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 09:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, the image was deleted initially because you did not state a license under which we could distribute it, which meant we could not legally host it. You've re-uploaded the image yourself, and while that's usually not recommended, it's not presently at risk of being deleted again. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Nothing to undelete now; issues at hand at the time of deletion were resolved. 哦，是吗？(висчвын) 02:55, 12 May 2008 (GMT)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Tsar_Bomba — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.226.173.65 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC) (UTC)
Not done. No reason for undeletion provided, and the category has never existed, so it has never been deleted and can therefore not be undeleted. There is a gallery page called Tsar Bomba. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Royal Standard of England.svg the flag was first used in 1837 copyright of the flag design is now outwith crown copyright should not have been deleted. --Barryob 03:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Isn't the free version sufficient? 哦，是吗？(висчвын) 01:06, 23 April 2008 (GMT)
- The original image was free and was a better representation of the flag --Barryob 17:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, but as clearly came out during the deletion discussion there appears to be no evidence of any use of this specific image which is early enough to mean it is out of copyright. The reference to "the design" having been used since 1837 relates not to this specific image but to the written blazon. Not every artistic version of that blazon is the same, and this one appears still to be in copyright. You have been asked to show a sufficiently early use but you haven't so far been able to do so. I'm afraid on the evidence we have available the decision to delete was correct, and no simple re-statement of the image was free will make it so. --MichaelMaggs 18:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- The original image was free and was a better representation of the flag --Barryob 17:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Can Image:Sin bandera.svg be temporarily undeleted, so people with bots can nicely clean things up on the different Wikipedia's ?
It's still used I believe... [2]
Example on the nl-wikipedia, there are bots notices of the deletion because it's a duplicate, however, it seems it's not been replaced by its duplicated, something a bot usually does I believe.
It's still used hundreds of times nl:Speciaal:VerwijzingenNaarHier/Afbeelding:Sin_bandera.svg, bots have notified its deletion on some pages (but not all), example nl:Overleg:Andorra, both it's replaced nowhere, breaking hundreds of pages. --LimoWreck 18:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Update, now apparently the redirect DOES seem to work? So is it just an issue of caching or doing a null edit on articles missing the old flag image to successfully show the new redirected image? --LimoWreck 18:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yep. Image redirects work now. It should be showing up soon. Rocket000 20:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
No issue here. Rocket000 12:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Please undelete. The pic is not a copyvio as it is has a legitimate cc-by-2.0 licence on flickr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/eranbe/5208501/). Thanks, DGtal 18:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Undeleted; Israeli FOP states that it is not a copyright infringement if the "paintings, drawings, engravings, or photographs of a work of sculpture or artistic craftsmanship" are "permanently situated in a public place, or building, or the making or publishing of paintings, drawings, engravings, or photographs of any architectural work of art". 哦，是吗？(висчвын) 18:45, 17 May 2008 (GMT)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I clearly disagree with that DR closing. The fact that the uploader himself asked for its deletion is not a valid reason of deletion. It's like someone who would want to cancel a "PD" licence in a "CC-BY-SA" licence. It's not acceptable. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC) (PS: I'm not the only one to disagree with that!)
- Hmmm... if it wasn't for the uploader we wouldn't have the image anyway. His reason wasn't valid, but generally "author/uploader requests" is a valid reason. The image has been uploaded twice. Once by User:Mileshigh000 and once by User:Minicirc, who uploaded various images of penises, all of which have been speedy deleted as "user request" except the one that's the subject of this undeletion request. Rocket000 15:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- So what? I don't understand why author/uploader request is a valide reason. Except for pictures that would only be useful for user profiles, pictures that are uploaded on Commons are supposed to be useful for the Wikimedia projects. Let's suppose there's a great picture, used on several Wikimedia projects, and which author has been unerved by some stupid thing and wants all his pictures be removed from Commons! It'd be silly to allow that kind of thing. It would mean that anything done on a Wikimedia project might have been done in vain because there would always be a risk that it may disappear. If someone collaborates to a Wikimedia project, s/he has to assume her/his former collaborations, even if s/he decides not to collaborate anymore. And this also applies to pictures on Commons. As I said, it's the same principle as the "not-retractable-licence" rule. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 06:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- That's a little different. It's not an absolute yes/no type of thing. If a image is used, then that's a reason not to honor the author's request. However, in this case, given the user's past (yes, both are the same user I believe) I don't think it wise to keep this picture anyway. It's kinda fishy when all the user does is upload images of penises (and one random extremely bad quality image) and asked for them to be removed (sometimes repeating the process). "User request" is a valid speedy delete reason used all the time, I don't see why this image should be an exception. At least it had a DR. Rocket000 09:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Why would we keep this picture? Maybe because it's the best curved penis we have and that might be (medically) useful! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Woohoo, look what I missed. Never thought I'd see a contested penis-picture deletion. So here goes with the tl;dr:
- It was a user request. This is valid all by itself, especially given that....
- It was a photo of his penis. <lies>As you may all know, I'm all in favour of having as many penis pictures on Commons as possible.</lies> You know, it was entirely possible that he uploaded it, and then realised the implications of releasing such a picture. Or maybe he got drunk, thought "hey, I have an idea" then regretted it later. It could be any number of things that would cause someone to upload a penis picture and later regret it. Whatever it was, <phrase realmeaning="I'm always looking for any excuse to delete these">it would be heartless of us not to obey this request</phrase>.
- It was a poor quality penis photo, curved or not. TBH I don't know if this was in use when I deleted it. I doubt it very much, though.
- Please don't raise the red herring of license revocation. The license is indeed irrevocable. Our willingness to host it, and his willingness to distribute it, is an entirely different issue. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 23:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- It was a poor quality penis photo, curved or not > I know it was poor quality but we don't have better ones for a curved penis so as long as we don't have a better picture for a particular subject there's no point deleting it for that reason.
- Our willingness to host it, and his willingness to distribute it, is an entirely different issue > so that really means that what I said above is possible: a user who might become angry against Wikimedia for some reason can decide to annoy us and ask deletion of all his pictures even if they're really interesting and useful! I'm sorry but if a user has decided to distribute one of his picture with a PD or CC licence, that means that the licence is irrevocable so anyone could upload it again on Commons because it's on public domain! Therefore, there would be no point deleting it from Commons even if the author/uploader wants it to be deleted.
- I don't really care about that picture but it's a matter of consequences that DR could have for Commons. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 05:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Such a person could ask for deletion, sure. That's not to say we'd take any notice of them. Note that I didn't delete it just because it was a user request (my closing comment was the Reader's Digest version of what I thought). I took into account many other factors before deleting it: quality, usefulness, the fact that it's a penis picture and so on. This doesn't set any bad precedent at all: Someone put a poor-quality picture of their penis online, regretted it, and asked us to delete it. It's basic courtesy to help out in such a situation. And yes, anyone that did save a copy of this photo could continue on using it under the original license. That licenses are irrevocable is a fact. That doesn't mean that we should assist in its distribution if there is compelling reason not to do so. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 07:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- That's a little different. It's not an absolute yes/no type of thing. If a image is used, then that's a reason not to honor the author's request. However, in this case, given the user's past (yes, both are the same user I believe) I don't think it wise to keep this picture anyway. It's kinda fishy when all the user does is upload images of penises (and one random extremely bad quality image) and asked for them to be removed (sometimes repeating the process). "User request" is a valid speedy delete reason used all the time, I don't see why this image should be an exception. At least it had a DR. Rocket000 09:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- So what? I don't understand why author/uploader request is a valide reason. Except for pictures that would only be useful for user profiles, pictures that are uploaded on Commons are supposed to be useful for the Wikimedia projects. Let's suppose there's a great picture, used on several Wikimedia projects, and which author has been unerved by some stupid thing and wants all his pictures be removed from Commons! It'd be silly to allow that kind of thing. It would mean that anything done on a Wikimedia project might have been done in vain because there would always be a risk that it may disappear. If someone collaborates to a Wikimedia project, s/he has to assume her/his former collaborations, even if s/he decides not to collaborate anymore. And this also applies to pictures on Commons. As I said, it's the same principle as the "not-retractable-licence" rule. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 06:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete wow - we are seriously arguing over a penis picture. Anyways. The image wasn't being used, was it? Doesn't seem like it. Did it have a future? Maybe... maybe not. Regardless the author requested it be removed and there wasn't much reason not to comply - other than to keep it around for posterity sakes. If you can find one page on any Wiki*edia project that has to have this exact image - right this very second - and can't use any of the other 20k penis pictures we have.... Then you get my vote to undelete it. Otherwise.... Can we waste our time on something better please? Like cat'ing uncat'd images? --ShakataGaNai Talk 07:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
![[1]](http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/3096113.jpg?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=552D90A84D8CF9809FF8AC40B7C3AA09A55A1E4F32AD3138){kind=link}
![[2]](http://tools.wikimedia.de/~daniel/WikiSense/CheckUsage.php?i=Sin_bandera.svg&w=_100000){kind=link}
- Well I think Peyronie's disease could have that image but I'm not medically sure. But if it is really Peyronie's disease, it seems useful because it would be a horizontal example of curved penis while the article has a vertically curved penis only. But again I would have to ask some medicine specialist in order to be sure it's Peyronie's disease. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
kept deleted Finn Rindahl 21:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This picture was deleted just minutes after I uploded it by birdy geimfyglið without any other explenation than "copyright". I know this image doesn't break any copyrights because it was taken by my father and the man on it (though you can't see his face) is a friend of his, and both have given me permission to upload here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wonko (talk • contribs) 23:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Hello, I had restored the image already, because we talked on IRC, the reason for the deletion was copyvio from [3], where no free use of the images could be found. But the user confirmed to be the siteowner, we exchanged emails, I asked him to confirm the permission to OTRS, which he had done, thanks, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 00:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Enrico Amato[edit]
Has the Enrico Amato page been deleted? Where can I find more information about this American singer/songwriter?
Wikimedia Commons is a free file repository. Please search for encyclopedic articles on Wikipedia. Thanks. →Christian.И 12:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
IMHO the deleted version was better. abf /talk to me/ 10:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- It's weird seeing a MediaWiki namespace page listed here. I don't think a UnDR is necessary. The system message is still there, so it's not really deleted. Maybe the talk page would be a better place to discuss this. Or just change it. :) Rocket000 08:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed yes; I have done so now. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 15:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Mike recreated it. Rocket000 07:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)