Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2008-08

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

HELP! Undelete immediately all my sub-pages![edit]

Admin Polarlys has deleted all my sub-pages in which I was writing articles for Wikipedia. He has deleted without ask me to save the articles. Plese undelete all the sub-pages. I'll move the articles to Wikipedia and then the version on Commons will be ready for deletion.

I don't remember precisely all the titles.

Please undelete them! --Nyo (talk) 10:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I got them all. I do delete plenty of "out of scope" stuff myself but I think I would have thought twice about such actively edited pages in user: space. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 11:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also User:Nyo/Kemetism (all old chronology) & User.Nyo/template kemet. Thank you very much. I'll move them to another project (I'll do this evening). --Nyo (talk) 11:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

Revert subpage[edit]

Please revert all the chronology of this sub-page. Thanks. --Nyo (talk) 22:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You just marked EVERY single one of your pages for speedy delete. Why? Then you post asking to "revert" one subpage? What are you trying to do. How is it separate from your last section here? --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 23:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Temporarily restored. Please transfer to the relevant project. And please use the section above for any further requests. And if you tag them again they are staying deleted. Rocket000 (talk) 03:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. --Nyo (talk) 07:01, 30 July 2008 (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.

Why the crap did Y'all DELETE MY USERPAGE!?[edit]

Why did y'all delete it? Can ya undelete it please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeige391 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Did you read the instructions?) Y'all have never had a user page on Commons, and it hasn't been deleted, so there's no damn need for cursing. Perhaps you're looking for wikipedia:en:User:Zeige391. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We ain't done no such thing. --O (谈 • висчвын) 02:19, 01 August 2008 (GMT)

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

image:half tick.jpg[edit]

The image is used in meta:template:half-done. Since I am not a frequent commoner, I was not aware that it was nominated for deletion. Whether the image is to be hosted here or on meta makes very little difference for me. I am very surprised that nobody has yet uploaded this symbol, which is very often used by teachers. Hillgentleman | 書 ---2008年07月29號 (星期Tue), 03:18:54 03:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted due to Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Half tick.jpg.--Ahonc (talk) 07:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quote from the aforementioned page: Was incomplete deletion request with no reason given. Doesn't seem to a useful image in any event. Unused. --rootology (T) 00:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC). As I have said, the image has been and had been used. The deletion request provided no reason. In any count I can see, 1-0 for undeletion. Hillgentleman | 書 ---2008年07月30號 (星期Wed), 02:51:05 02:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um... you reuploaded it, so what's this request for? It's not deleted. Rootology was just completing the request and giving some info. If the tools we have say it's unused, 99.9% of the time it's true. It's looks pretty bad awesome so the deletion was not out of line and reuploading it is fine since I would've restored it for you, but in the future, please come here before you reupload and after you talk to the deleting admin. Thanks. Rocket000 (talk) 03:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know. In a message on my talk page I was asked to come here. Since I am not sure about the procedures here, I just wanted to make sure that everything is all right. Thanks. Hillgentleman | 書 ---2008年07月30號 (星期Wed), 03:57:29 03:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, ok. No problem. I guess I'll close this now. Rocket000 (talk) 09:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image would have been undeleted, so I'll close it as such. Rocket000 (talk) 09:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Image:Extractor-hood_air_gets_in.gif and Image:Extractor-hood_air_gets_out.gif[edit]

When I marked these files as no source at it.wiki an administrator declined to delete them. When I asked why, I was informed that due to the uploader's writing a self-promotional article and the images appearing on the company's website it was likely uploader was the copyright holder. I agree and now believe these files should be undeleted. -Nard the Bard 16:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commons accepts files that are demonstrably free, which does not leave room for assumptions about the authorship of works uploaded by wikispammers. According to Commons:Licensing#License information, {{Self}} is not considered sufficient authorship assertion for Commons, and this even falls short of that. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So I guess the wikis can disagree. :P -Nard the Bard 14:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Image:LUIS HUMBERTO ANDRADE NO MAS FARC. jpg.jpg[edit]

Deleted 12:00, 29 May 2008 by Spacebirdy stating that it was copyright violation. However the picture had a clear GNU liscence, issued by the owner of the picture, as stated below:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/19361960@N04/2245106123/ Copyright (c) LUIS HUMBERTO ANDRADE Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation License".


I uploaded the photo following the request of Luis Humberto Andrade since he had no previous experience editing wikipedia, or adding content to the wikimedia commons.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcbohorquez (talk • contribs) 18:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The photograph is marked "all rights reserved" on Flickr. If you have a statement from the copyright holder that puts the image under a free license in spite its copyright notice on Flickr, you need to forward it to OTRS. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:07, 11 July 2008 (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.

page deletion[edit]

I'm not sure if this was deleted I am currently making a page for our company and wasn't sure if it was deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Astyra (talk • contribs) 03:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have no other contributions to your account, deleted or otherwise. Your userpage on English Wikipedia was deleted. If you are making a page for your company - it will be deleted as that is Out of Scope for Commons. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 04:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Image:Maplebrook School.jpeg[edit]

I am unsure why the image was deleted after being ok for several months, but the following is the e-mail chain which authorized its use: 

[snip]

Could you please put the picture back? Thanks.LedRush (talk) 14:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, because the OTRS volunteer said that "for Wikipedia use" or "for promotional use" is not enough (otrs:2008032410016392). Please see Commons:Licensing for the requirements. --O (谈 • висчвын) 15:34, 18 July 2008 (GMT)
Well, couldn't they have just told me that and then e-mailed the school again? Why would they first say it's ok and then say it's not, rather than just responding immediately in the e-mail? Can someone just tell me what the e-mail needs to say so I can have the school say it?LedRush (talk) 15:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is your responsibility to get the permission required for the images to be on Commons. Also, according to the email transmission which I have snipped, the volunteer said it was not enough. Just use one of the email templates as a request for permission. --O (谈 • висчвын) 15:50, 18 July 2008 (GMT)
I don't know which questions you are answering, but the e-mail chain I sent you didn't say that the permission was insufficient, nor did anyone inform me that it was insufficient. Anyway, I will use the e-mail template for the permission.LedRush (talk) 16:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You need to ask them for the permission; they just fill out the template. --O (谈 • висчвын) 16:06, 18 July 2008 (GMT)

The copyright holder sent this e-mail last week:

"Dear permissions-commons,

I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of WORK "image:Maplebrook School.jpeg"( which was deleted from Wikimedia on June 14,2008). I agree to publish that work under the free license LICENSE FULL Text. I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product,and to modify it according to their needs,as long as they abide the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work,and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen .Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me. I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright,and I reserve the option to take action who uses this work in a libelous way,or in violation of personal rights,trademark restrictions,etc. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement,and the work may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

July 1.2008 Roger Fazzone Copyright holder"

Will you please put the image back up now?LedRush (talk) 15:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it is back --Herby talk thyme 09:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Lasviudasdelosjueves.pdf[edit]

hi iam from argentina and i really need that summary so if you please can give it to me as fast as you can i would be really glad and i promise will help a lot with this page so if you can undelete this file can you contact me at my mail agus_rios@hotmail.com my user is agusrios


the file is the one in the head line is a summary of "Las Viudas de los Jueves"

the file is from siebran


21:47, 24 May 2008 Siebrand (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Lasviudasdelosjueves.pdf" ‎ (Dupe of Image:La viuda resumen.pdf) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agusrios (talk • contribs) 19:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the deletion information there, you will see that this file is a duplicate of Image:La viuda resumen.pdf. So why not use that file instead? --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 08:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to restore; as both files have since been deleted. --O (谈 • висчвын) 18:20, 07 August 2008 (GMT)

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

Image:Vivekananda[edit]

Why Image:Vivekananda.png was deleted, where is the copyright violation? Vivekanada died 4. July 1902 --Durga (talk) 20:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image in question is seen at http://www.vivekananda.net/photos/1895-1896TN/pages/london-1896-meditating.htm, which states that it was taken in 1896 by Alfred Ellis, who died in 1899, which I believe would mean it's been in the public domain since 1970.
It was tagges as a copyright violation by Wikidas (talk · contribs) (along with Image:Swami Vivekananda.jpg) with the comment "Image copyright renewed - not public domain image. See publications on Vivekandanda". Not sure what publications that refers to or by what mechanism the copyright for a work that's been in the public domain for nearly 40 years has supposedly been "renewed" or by whom. Without that information, I'm inclined to  support undeletion. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although {{PD-US}} wasn't correct if it was taken in London. But other than that it seems PD and you can't renew something that's already in the public domain. How would that work? That means there no rights left, including the right to renew. There's a grace period, but it's definitely not 40 years. Rocket000 (talk) 21:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
en:Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan has renewed it for a number of photos/images of Viviekananda, as it is shown on their publications. There have been talk of transferring the copyright to RM Mission, but it has not happened yet due to legal limitations. --Wikidas (talk) 02:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Who are they, how did they supposedly circumvent statutory limitations on copyright protection, and again, which publications? Please give specific, verifiable references. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are publishers and educations body. See also ISBN 81-7823-000-3 where earlier publication by them is mentioned. Wikidas (talk) 17:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And what is their claim to the copyright of a work by a photographer who's been dead for 109 years? —LX (talk, contribs) 17:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know the details of how they got transfer of the copyright or a permission or if its copy right on postproduction of the originals, a letter? I suggest the right thing is to write to them and ask: BHARATIYA VIDYA BHAVAN Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi - 110001. I can only see the little [c] Wikidas (talk) 18:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where is that ©? At the beginning of a book containing that image? If so, then that would apply to the book as a whole, not to every individual letter, word and public domain image contained in it. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Images [c] - I do not know if it covers all images or not.Wikidas (talk) 17:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds very much like a spurious claim. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have sufficient information to assume it is spurious claim. Does anyone here have such information? Wikidas (talk) 06:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I restored these images. For Image:Vivekananda.png, it was mentioned as taken in London. However I can't find where is the source of this information. Yann (talk) 09:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to have been closed by Yann. --Herby talk thyme 08:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

Image:BaldwinHills.jpg[edit]

Image:BaldwinHills.jpg was deleted please restore it i put it under the wrong license accidentally and please restore — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tboy2012 (talk • contribs) 13:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And what, supposedly, is the correct license? Per http://www.bet.com/site/TermsOfService, this does not appear to be a free image. Please read Commons:Licensing. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The images would be "out of scope" if it were correctly licensed (which is not the case per the link by LX. --Herby talk thyme 11:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

Deleted Images[edit]

Hi,

I had loaded 3 images and they were quickly deleted with the reason posted to my talk page that they were not within the scope of the commons, but the scope seemed to be defined to me as essentially media vs. text and everything that I loaded were images. Could you please either undelete my images or provide me with a meaningful reason as to why they are not appropriate?

Thanks, FrazierQuarry (talk) 12:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give us the area in which you feel that the images might be used (these). I see that this page (where they were used) is not in Wikipedia mainspace at present so they feel it is not appropriate for now. As one is a logo of The Frazier Quarry as created for their Prostores online storefront the use would seem to be promotional? Thanks --Herby talk thyme 13:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Prostores logo was indeed created for the online store but the only reason that it is labeled as such is because it is a different image size from our main logo and I wanted to differentiate that. It is the company logo and there are many companies, e.g. Nike, whose logo is a significant identifier and worthwhile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FrazierQuarry (talk • contribs) 15:56, 31 Jul 2008 (UTC)
Personally I see no need to undelete this.
  1. It is not a notable company such as Nike
  2. The page about it is not in en wp mainspace
  3. It seems possible that the intention is promotional
Other views are of course welcome. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 17:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing else heard, commercial use is likely. Closed --Herby talk thyme 08:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

Rusitha Ukwatta[edit]

undeletion of file "Rusitha Ukwatta" requested — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.92.18 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but you are going to need to be more specific than that. What is the file name, and WHY should it be undeleted? Thank you. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 17:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page "Rusitha Ukwatta" was deleted one day after its creation. Why is this?

I created that file myself and I need it to be there. Therefore, please undelete this deleted file. Thank you.

The file name names are "Rusitha Ukwatta" and "Rusitha.jpeg". Please undelete these deleted file. I created them alone myself with a lot of effort. My username is Rusithaukwatta.

To be more specific, below are the two URL's of the ones that were deleted. The content in these two are missing. Please restore these back to their original form.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Rusitha_Ukwatta

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

As for Rusitha Ukwatta:Wikimedia Commons is a media repository, we do not host articles. That's why it was deleted. Image:Rusitha.jpg was deleted because it is not a picture of a notable person or in any other way of encyclopedic value. Like the deletion notice says, this is not the place to post your resume. Please have a look at COM:SCOPE --rimshottalk 00:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete my page.

"Out of scope" material. Not undeleted. --Herby talk thyme 11:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deleting a complete operation without Deletion Request[edit]

Its not "an operation". Its just a series of images of the woman's genitalia - no useful animation could be created from it.--Nilfanion (talk) 14:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know excatly the difference between "operation" and "plastic surgery", but maybe you can explain that. The correct name of this series is Labiaplasty, Category:Labiaplasty - both currently red. See also en:Labiaplasty Mutter Erde (talk) 15:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The image titles are misleading, the majority are equivalent to images such as Image:A vulva.jpeg or Image:Vagina,Anus,Pereneum-Detail.jpg.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • My understanding of the image titles is that they concern an encyclopedic series of pictures concerning female genital mutilation" or removal, which is different from yet another bunch of female genitalia pictures. --Foroa (talk) 15:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per Nilfanion. We have enough of them. Porn merchants aside we have plenty of those images. A closeup of a vagina (ok a couple of dozen) does not make them worth us keeping. If anyone other than the porn merchant wish to undelete them that is fine with me. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 15:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Who is "we"? And who is the "porn merchant"? Curious Mutter Erde (talk) 15:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I restored these images. "We have enough genitalia" is not a valid reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 08:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thank you , but it is probably not necessary to undelete them all, or? Regards Mutter Erde (talk) 08:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I would not decide myself which ones are good or appropriate, and which ones are not. A proper deletion request is needed if some of these images are do not come into COM:SCOPE. Yann (talk) 10:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have created now the Category:Labiaplasty for the blue ones, within the sub-categories Category:Vulva, and 2 red ones as Category:Plastic surgery and Category:Genital modification. So , let's wait and see. Regards Mutter Erde (talk) 10:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basically just closing this up for Yann. The difference of opinions suggest a slow drawn-out boring old deletion request would be more appropriate than a speedy "operation". Rocket000 (talk) 00:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

image:semen2.jpg[edit]

Image was apparently deleted as a result of a deletion requestCommons:Deletion_requests/Image:Semen2.jpg.

1) Image has been in the Semen article for a substantial time, at least mid 2006, maybe earlier.

2) It survived a deletion request on the en.wikipedia, see Here Is it even appropriate for it to be considered for a delete request after surviving a previous one recently? (less than 2 years).

3) On the recent delete request, there was no notification on the page it was used on the en.wikipedia site. No way for editors there to respond their opinions on the matter.

4) On the recent delete request, the people voting seemed to have the mnistaken impression that is was a new image, apparently not aware that it has been used for some time. "whomever posted this new picture wants their 5 minutes of fame on Wikipedia."

5) The deleting editor is shown as commons admin Szczepan. The person who then removed it from the en.wikipedia article after it was deleted was Wikipedia editor Szczepan1990, apparently the same admin. If he deleted it from the semen article after deleting it from the commns site, you would think that he was aware that it was used on the en.wikipedia. If so, why didn't he put some kind of notification tag or discussion on the talk page asking for feedback? Or prohibit it from being deleted from the commons site when he knew it was being used? Do the commons admins have the capabilty to censore en.wikipedia?

I ask for the image to be returned please, and marked so that this doesn't happen again. Thank you. Atomaton (talk) 04:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was just going to open a undeletion request myself. If the editors at en.wikipedia want to use the image, it is clearly within our project scope. I therefore  Support undeletion. --Kjetil_r 06:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
#1 In use makes it in scope. #2 en.wp's DR's don't much matter to us, plus even if it has been DR'd on Commons and kept, it can be DR'd again the next week (not that much will change). #3 - Ya'll don't get notifications. It currently isn't possible, so don't bother. #4 - I think you misunderstand. Commons has alot of nude pictures uploaded every day, this is much the same. #5 - It seems odd to me that the admin would go and remove it, we have a bot to do that. Also, we're not here to censor you - we can't... you've got this nifty thing called a local image store that we can't touch. But... just like en.wp has project rules and scope, we have the same.
This all being said, the DR was only open for a day, and had a number of comments. I think it was premature to close this DR. There should have been a reason with the deletion since the vote was so close. The best I can tell there is no problem with this image, the main issue we have with most nude (and similar) images is they being useless and out of scope - as this image was used - it was in scope.
 Support Restoring. Would have done it myself actually, but we have a proccess for a reason. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 06:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The request was open for multiple days; one of the last comments was placed in the wrong place.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Support undeletion. The only time an admin should delete an image after they've participated in its DR is when overwhelming consensus would have formed with or without them. --jonny-mt 11:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The deleting admin did not participate in the discussion...--Nilfanion (talk) 23:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, we can consider this problem in two ways: 1. is this picture unique, with an outstanding value (encyclopedic, rarity etc) that it is not replaceable and just needs to stay on Commons, even with its poor quality/size. The anwser is NO. We have, first example from a row: Image:Human semen in petri dish.jpg, which is far more valuable, and has a better quality. 2. is this gonna be another voting just to prove that Wiki projects are indeed more bureaucrative than EU, and it needs to be restored only to show that some particular admin was wrong, had no right to delete anything, and that every picture can stay here for ever, even if there are better, more encyclopedic ones? So once again - Commons as a free files repository, but without looking actually on files value and their substantiality or rather we will look and judge files and their usefulness? If commons for pictures (for encyclopedia!), I  Oppose restoring it. If Commons for dull and stupid bureaucracy without looking at its primary functions, I  Support! Lets restore that and other poor files and lets spam Wiki-articles with them. Masur (talk) 22:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Support undeletion. File meets licensing requirements, is in project scope as en.wp wants it and isn't really pornographic. Better files exist or could be readily generated (by half the users on Commons), and this could be replaced in the wikipedia article then. If en.wp consensus is to replace this file with a superior one (and so orphaning it) then delete away.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. I don't like looking at it either, but Commons' first and primary job is to be a media repository for our sister projects. If they want it, who are we to say no, use a different one? Rocket000 (talk) 00:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Funny. You are not decise, what's Commons idea of job. Commons:Deletion_requests was clear, ~20h discussion 'bout undeletion with 3 voices pro and 1 strongly oppose that's a joke:) Deleted, wait a few days, Mr Admin Szwedzki (talk) 01:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Icon 01029 Sobor Prepodobnyh Pecherskih.jpg[edit]

please, undelete the image Image:Icon 01029 Sobor Prepodobnyh Pecherskih.jpg this is an Icon of the Feast of all saints of the great monastery (Lavra) of the caves of Kiev (Kiiv), in old Rus' The Feast is also called Synaxis in Greek & English, and Sobor in Russian. It is still refered in the clone of wikipedia, answers.com : http://www.answers.com/topic/saint

it should be used as illustration of this page : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiev_Cave_Monastery

thank you --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.109.97.168 (talk • contribs) 06:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but that image has no source information. Additionally... It was deleted 8 months ago. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 08:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing else heard so closed for archiving. --Herby talk thyme 10:11, 14 August 2008 (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.

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Het1.jpg[edit]

  • 22:22, 13. Aug. 2008 Ra'ike (Diskussion | Beiträge) hat „Image:Het1.jpg“ gelöscht ? (Out of project scope)


No comment on the image itself, but you got to respect two DRs closed as kept. Restored. Rocket000(talk) 23:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. like I said above. The after-party's here. Rocket000(talk) 09:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of country flags is gone[edit]

It would be great to have this page back... makes it a lot easier to validate images for multiple countries at once.

Desconozco por que fue eliminada la cuenta. Solicito reactivación de la misma. Gracias.

The page never existed. --O (谈 • висчвын) 20:08, 18 August 2008 (GMT)

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

please undelete my page[edit]

I work for an organization that needs to send emails to photographers. It seems to me that this is the only way for me to be in contact with the photographers on this site.

Please undelete my page .

Thank you

C

Sorry - difficult to deal with unless you indicate who you are and say which page you are referring to. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closed. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Poster de Sin Juicio Previo.jpg[edit]

Image:Poster de Sin Juicio Previo.jpg

Afirmo por este medio que soy el creador de esta contribución o que no viola ningún derecho de terceros. Declaro publicar este texto bajo la Licencia de documentación libre de GNU.

I'M THE CREATOR OF THIS PICTURE!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerp1981 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 30. Jun. 2008 (UTC)

 Stale --O (谈 • висчвын) 20:04, 22 August 2008 (GMT)

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

Image:Beenhouwersstraat Brussel.JPG[edit]

Not sure how this could have been deleted as no source, when the original upload log is plain as day. Also the uploader appears to be requesting undeletion on the current (file-less) page. -Nard the Bard 03:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They were deleted because the uploader themselves had tagged them with {{Unknown}} in the licensing section. This seems to contradict the "{{GFDL}} - own picture" entered in the description, but I'm not sure which statement should get the upper hand. Perhaps the uploader could shed some light on the reasons for the tagging? —LX (talk, contribs) 07:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you restore this page so that i can view the movie. Thanks. georginastrutt2005@yahoo.co.uk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.60.98.134 (talk • contribs) 12:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Beenhouwersstraat Brussel.JPG never contained a movie. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Stale --O (谈 • висчвын) 20:01, 22 August 2008 (GMT)


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

File:Pigbutt worm-308.jpg[edit]

As I understood the situation, this image was deleted because we had permission from the photographer to use it under the BY-SA 3.0 license which, at the time this image was uploaded and deleted, was not yet an approved license on commons. That has changed, and so the image should be reinstated. Thanks! —mako๛ 15:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case it's not clear, I originally forwarded the information to OTRS and am happy to do so again if that is necessary. —mako๛ 15:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the OTRS ticket, the respondent never made an explicit assertion of being the copyright holder, nor did they actually nominate a specific license. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Stale --O (谈 • висчвын) 20:03, 22 August 2008 (GMT)


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

[edit]

I am writing from Qatar Airways Digital Marketing department.

Wikipedia has used an old logo that Qatar Airways never uses any more and has updated to our new logo.

The new logo is uploaded to Wikimedia Commons.

You will need to send an email to OTRS confirming that you are indeed in a position to grant such a license on the Qatar Airways logo. After that, the image can be undeleted. --rimshottalk 21:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done --O (谈 • висчвын) 20:07, 22 August 2008 (GMT)

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

Image:Het1.jpg[edit]

What's this? Pure anarchy on commons?

But first Rai'ke should close the third deletion request as kept so that she could start the fourth request correctly. kopfschüttel Mutter Erde (talk) 14:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restored, so that the discussion can continue at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Het1.jpg. --Kjetil_r 14:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Omar_Khadr_getting_battlefield_first_aid.jpg[edit]

Image was deleted out-of-process because (supposedly): "the photo is from a book "Guantanamo’s Child" except a) the photo was previously published (it was even uploaded to Commons before the book was published and is clearly not a scan) and b) was kept after a deletion request. The community clearly believes the weight of the evidence shows this photo is a work of the US federal government and thus PD. -Nard the Bard 04:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I notified Zscout370. —Giggy 04:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Beat me to it :P -Nard the Bard 04:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I mentioned at the time (in various places, talk pages, reviews, etc) - I've spoken to the author of the book, the family of the combatant involved and US military officers from press corps and JTF-GTMO. All the images I uploaded to Commons are indisputably Public-Domain, and nobody has ever disputed their licensing except for several WikiCommons trolls who either vandalise the images, or in this case, outright delete them without discussion. In this case, the same administrator also deleted Image:Khadr40.png, Image:Med57th July 22002 Citation team.jpg and Image:KHadr5.png, even after I asked him to just alert me if he honestly believed any images had licensing issues so I could allay his concerns. He refused, and began deleting more images of w:Omar Khadr in what can at best be seen as ill-advised posturing, at worst childish POV vandalism. Sherurcij (talk) 05:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S., you can find sources for several of these images at s:OC-1 CITF witness report, the work of an unidentified US soldier present at the firefight which includes the photographs as exhibits 1-27 inclusive. Sherurcij (talk) 05:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see the previous deletion request. I was notified about the photos from en.wikipedia, where we were asked on the admin's noticeboard about the amount of photographs in the article. I precoded to check each one, and deleting or tagging the ones with the strange licenses. What I am looking for in these photo is a URL source or something definite, instead of "some US soldier." If Sherurcij can point out what pages these photos appear that in the document that he cites, then of course, the images can be restored and the sources added. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From checking the document that Sherurcij linked, I do see that the photos were included as attachments. Ok, so they do exist in the report, but the question remains the same; who took them. I frankly do not know who took the photos and the paper doesn't list it either. The paper does list it found photos and video, but doesn't say who made them. For our purposes at the Commons, we need to know these things in order for them to be licensed correctly. My only suggestion is until we figure that out, along with what US copyright law says about seized property, we should use the photos on en.wikipedia as fair use. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
a) The proper response to "Does this article have too many images?" is not to start deleting images; rather remove them from the article.
b) "I didn't notice", yes that's why we have something called discussions for these things, so that wayward administrators don't take things upon themselves to become vigilantes.
c) Got a link to that noticeboard alert?
d) Many photos don't have a URL source, and they certainly don't need one. "An unidentified soldier from the 82d or 19th SFG division" is perfectly acceptable, and a great deal more information than necessary.
e) Seized property? wtf? You're not even making sense.
f) If you believe there is a honest lack of information on a file, request that the uploader add a clarification to the file - don't just randomly delete it and refuse to even restore it for improvement, that's just dickish.
Sherurcij (talk) 06:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1) Sherurcij, if we had to set up our own "military commissions" for every single image we find suspicious before deleting it, Commons would not be called a repository of Free media. Calling "dickish" and "random" such deletion shows little understanding of the realities of Commons.
2) Seeing your images, nothing proves that they were taken by military personel. The US military has a large part of its propaganda done by so-called "embedded journalists", who retain copyright on their works. Without proper links and references, it is reasonnable to assume a high risk of this being the case. Especially so with images of low quality like these; images published by military sources are typically of a high quality.
3) The appearance of these images in the so-called "Guantanamo Bay military commission" is irrelevant. Rama (talk) 07:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Witness statement linked above says "He believed these photographs were taken by members of the 19th SFG". In other words he doesn't know. We don't need to know exactly which GI took the pictures, but we need to be positive that it was a GI that took the picture for it for it to fall under {{PD-USGov-Military-Army}}. Since even the court documents show that the photographer is unknown that means it is anonymous work and subject to Copyright for 120 years. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 07:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The OC-1 statement I already posted on Wikisource in its entirety should make it clear there were no embedded journalists, you may also turn to the book Guantanamo's Child by w:Michelle Shephard (specifically pp 1-16 for the w:Order of Battle) to further be clear that the only people present were federal employees of the United States armed forces; and if the Department of Defense believes they are Department of Defense photos...that's definitely a good sign they're...Department of Defense photos. The only people who have ever questioned the PD nature of these images, are not the newspaper editors who published them as PD DoD images, not w:John Wiley & Sons who published them as PD DoD images, but Wikitrolls who have campaigned to have portions of the WP article deleted; typically for transparently POV reasons. It would be like saying "Sorry, JediBilbo1138 says that Image:Flight77-2.ogg could be a photoshop creation by an outsider contractor hired to cover up the conspiracy that the planes never existed; thus it is copyrighted". It's simply beyond any reasonable standard of good faith, the department of defence demonstrably agrees with me, no journalist has ever claimed to have taken these photos, but has published them as PD DoD photos, and I've offered you the telephone numbers of JTF-GTMO press office if you really have any doubts. I'm an administrator at Wikisource, employed at Archive.org and have uploaded 2,250 photos to Commons...I assure you know my copyright law, and I can vouch 110% that these iamges are public domain. But you don't even have to take my word for it, you can take that of every other publisher in the world other than JediBilbo1138 who thinks he smells a conspiracy. Sherurcij (talk) 08:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"if the Department of Defense believes they are Department of Defense photos...that's definitely a good sign they're...Department of Defense photos". According to this criteria, there are "good signs" of large amount of non-sense.
It is the task of what you call "wikitrolls" to acertain the Free nature of work (for your convenience, incidentally). The task of John Wiley & Sons is to make money. That they take different actions is no wonder.
Again, simply write a small rational that explain that there were only US grunts at the scene, give reliable references (URLs to official websites, book pages; but no "Rumsfeld told me", please), and we're all set. Why all that drama? Rama (talk) 08:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The drama is because I can't add that small rationale giving cited references per source, because somebody decided to delete the objects in question rather than ask me to add the rationale. I have no problem adding cited references; but it's difficult when somebody just clicks "delete" on every photograph in an article because he claims somebody told him the article had too many images. If you restore the images, I'll add all the necessary cited references/sources, as I've said from the beginning; but I need them restored to do that. Sherurcij (talk) 08:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, my crappy file names don't let me know what exactly the other images are of, since there are more than a dozen Omar Khadr images; but can they also be restored so I can copy over the "improved" author parameter assuming it's relevant? Sherurcij (talk) 11:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Durham Cathedral[edit]

The photo Image:Fullingmill.jpg was an incomparably good picture of Durham Cathedral. There is none other from the "best angle" and this pic had the added advantage of being and atmospheric snow scene.

Is there any way of ggetting it back?

Mandy (talk) 05:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restored Stupid upload bots can't get the license tags right. Please check to make sure all the info's correct. Thanks. Rocket000(talk) 09:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:City of Lake View Iowa official logo.jpg[edit]

I am requesting that the file "City of Lake View Iowa official logo.jpg" be restored.

It was deleted due to a "Copyright Violation" which is incorrect. The City of Lake View, Iowa has assured me that this image is PUBLIC DOMAIN.

I'm pretty new at contributing to Wikipedia, so please forgive any mis-steps in overturning the deletion.

If you have questions about any of the images I've added for the Lake View, Iowa entry, you may certainly verify their public domain status by contacting the city officials and/or visiting the official website.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by KrazJoe (talk • contribs) 16:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image was claimed to be in the public domain "because it consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship." That's not true; the image does contain original authorship. {{PD-ineligible}} applies to things like simple shapes, diagrams and text. If the City of Lake View have placed their logotype into the public domain, a statement to that effect needs to be forwarded to OTRS. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done --O (谈 • висчвын) 22:43, 27 August 2008 (GMT)


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

Company logo deleted[edit]

A couple of weeks ago I uploaded a company logo, now I notice that the file is deleted.

This is God's verdict:

18:57, 18 July 2008 Mattbuck (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Bookit CompanyLogo.gif" ‎ (Copyright violation: logo)

I am acting as a representative of this particular company, so I do not understand why it is deleted, since we are the copyright holders of the image ourselves.

This image is intended to be used on the Bookit Wiki that we have prepared to be published on the dutch wiki pages. But we do not want to publish it without this image.

What can I do to make this image available on wiki? I am new at this, so maybe I did not add the correct information with the upload. I

Hope to hear from you soon

If you want you can contact me directly:

jvdjagt@bookit.nl,

hence the domain :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jørg (talk • contribs) 13:59, 15 Aug 2008 (UTC)

In order to allow a company logo to remain here & be certain that there was no copyright violation permission would have to be sent to the OTRS procedure.
However we also need to take into account the use & value of any image. It would seem that you may intend the logo for promotional purposes? Thanks --Herby talk thyme 14:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Hi there Herbythyme, I understand why you would suspect that, but the image is not intended for promotional purposes. In fact, this is the corporate logo of Bookit and "Bookit" is not a brand that needs to be promoted. We have other successfull brands/websites that we do promote and market, but we have no intentions of doing any of such things on Wikipedia. It is our sole purpose to enter the company on the Dutch Wiki pages, for the simple reason that it is a well known company in Holland with a rich history. Adding an image of a (corporate) logo on a Wiki about a company makes sense and is common practice on countless other Wiki company pages. Trust me, if our intentions were commercial, then we would have uploaded our commercial logo instead of our Corporate one. I'll go check the OTRS procedure, thanks for your input! --Jørg (talk) 14:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem as though the Dutch Wikipedia community shares your view.[1] If the company is not deemed relevant enough to merit an encyclopædia article, its logotype probably falls outside our project scope as well. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done --O (谈 • висчвын) 22:54, 27 August 2008 (GMT)

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

Lessingbrücke[edit]

Mit den selbst gemachten Fotos möchte ich den in der deutschen Wikipedia enthaltenen Beitrag gestalten, dabei verstehe ich nicht, was den Richtlinien nicht entsprechen soll? --44penguins 14:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geht es um ein bestimmtes Bild das geloescht wurde? Bei Image:Herzbergstrasse EKL Signet.jpg sollte die Panoramafreiheit greifen. --rimshottalk 05:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kommt wohl nichts mehr. →Christian.И 20:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

Image:0,1020,1264296,00.jpg[edit]

Meta says it's form Reuters--Sanandros (talk) 16:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why undelete it? Anyways, it's from here, a German newspaper. --rimshottalk 21:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter. It have to be deleted.--Sanandros (talk) 12:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's the reason I wonder why you put it on the undeletion requests page ;) --rimshottalk 20:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty clear consensus to keep the image deleted :) →Christian.И 20:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

why?[edit]

--It's my history ¬¬Kill.RocK!e (talk) 23:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your page was deleted because Commons content is galleries of images (mostly) freely licensed for use on other projects. As such your page was deleted because it was outside our scope. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 10:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above. →Christian.И 20:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Brisbane, Australia 2008 "Anonymous" anti-Scientology protests[edit]

Undelete request: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Brisbane,_Australia_2008_%22Anonymous%22_anti-Scientology_protests&action=edit&redlink=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.209.183 (talk • contribs) 04:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This category is empty, therefore  Not done. →Christian.И 14:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2008-08&oldid=303777886"