Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2009-02

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.

File:Day 18 of War on Gaza.PNG[edit]

File:Day 18 of War on Gaza.PNG was deleted by Yann (talk) with the edit summary "Copyright violation".

I don't believe it was a copyright violation. Did you read my comment on the image talk page that I left before you deleted the image?: File talk:Day 18 of War on Gaza.PNG

Exact video source link needed
http://cc.aljazeera.net is not good enough. People must be able to verify that an image came from a free video by looking for themselves at the original source video.
Tiamat. On the image page please add the exact source URL for the specific video that this image came from.
Is it one of the free Jan. 13, 2009 videos linked on this page?:
If so, the original uploader (you) needs to add the URL for whichever free video it came from.
Normally, Al Jazeera images are not free, and it is up to the uploader to prove that an image came from one of their free videos. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please undelete the image. It is not a copyright violation. It just needed the URL of the video it came from. I will contact Tiamat via her Wikipedia user page. w:User:Tiamut. She has not been editing since Jan. 30, so please wait before deleting again.

The image description said it was from Jan. 13, 2009. That means it comes from one of two Jan. 13, 2009 free videos here: http://cc.aljazeera.net

Tiamat linked to that page on the image description page. Did you not check it? It says: "The Gaza footage is released under the ‘Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution’ license which allows for commercial and non-commercial use."

I left a note at w:User talk:Tiamut#File:Day 18 of War on Gaza.PNG --Timeshifter (talk) 23:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright message is Unless otherwise noted content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License. Please see licensing information accompanying each individual video. So you have to show which video it comes from. Regards, Yann (talk) 23:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Unless otherwise noted." On the same page it says "The Gaza footage is released under the ‘Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution’ license which allows for commercial and non-commercial use."
Tiamat had the date of the photo listed as Jan. 13, 2009. Those Jan. 13, 2009 videos are listed at http://cc.aljazeera.net/node?page=1
So Tiamat showed roughly which videos it came from. Common courtesy would have required you to wait before deletion, especially after I left a note on the image talk page at 21:38, 1 February 2009, and on her Commons talk page. You did not wait even a full day. You deleted the image at 13:44 on Feb 2, 2009. This was an abuse of speedy delete. Questioned deletions are usually discussed first. For example;
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bloodied-face-sm.JPG --Timeshifter (talk) 00:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted. the image is from a video taken on January 13, http://cc.aljazeera.net/node/37, at 00:45s, cc-by. Of course the uploader have to provide the source next time, the general disclaimer says cc-by-NC, it is on him to link the different permission. --Martin H. (talk) 00:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:2009 F-150 XLT.jpg, File:2008FordSportTrac.jpg and other Ford Motor company images that were deleted.[edit]

I would like the matter be reopened and rediscussed in the ongoing Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Ford Motor Company thread. Closer did not adequately provide information and did not allow ample time for discussion on the topic at hand. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. The original version (first upload) of those two pictures have a CC-by-nc watermark. About whether they should be restored or not can be discussed on Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Ford Motor Company, until someone eventually close the deletion request. We are still waiting for your answer over there. →Diti the penguin — 19:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Vandersteen.jpg[edit]

to be used again in EN:WP en:Willy Vandersteen --Bahnmoeller (talk) 17:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: Why can I not see any link to any discussion, if any happend, about the deletion? --Bahnmoeller (talk) 17:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done per COM:FOP#The Netherlands--Trixt (talk) 18:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done no freedom of panorama in Belgium, see COM:FOP#Belgium--Trixt (talk) 18:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Mary church.jpg[edit]

Regarding Image:Mary church.jpg, if you look at the discussion, it is pretty clear that the closing admin went aginst the consensus of the editors involved in the discussion. The image is pre-1901. I see no signs that this image is not PD, and {{PD-US-no notice}} suits to this case. Evrik (talk) 15:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please see COM:DR: "The debates are not votes, and the closing admin will apply copyright law and Commons policy to the best of his or her ability in determining whether the file should be deleted or kept. Any expressed consensus will be taken into account so far as possible, but consensus can never trump copyright law nor can it override Commons Policy." The image may well be pre 1901 but the LOC has concerns that it is not free. Can you tell me when and where it was published? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I can't prove when it was published ... but then neither can you. i think the benefit of the doubt can be give to the image seeing that Image:Mary church terrell 2.jpg and Image:Mary church terrell.jpg have been allowed to exist, and they are from the same timeframe. Clearly this image was {{PD-US-no notice}}. Evrik (talk) 20:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, that is bad news. Thy are allowing "unrestricted research use on site", but require a fee for commercial use. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. The Smithsonian has been known to overreach on copyright claims before... and it uses the vague term "has rights" instead of copyright explicitly. It does appear as though the Smithsonian bought Scurlock's material after his son died, so presumably they do own any rights which still exist. They title this image Mary Church Terrell as a young woman, then date it 1920-1930 -- but Church was born in 1863, so she would have been in her 60s in that time frame. It may have taken in the time frame mentioned on the LoC page (1890-1900), though according to this page, Scurlock was an apprentice in a portrait studio from 1900 to 1904 and only started on his own in 1905. It also mentions Scurlock retouched photos to remove wrinkles. Because the LoC got the image via the NAACP records, it was presumably published -- but when? The page I linked to also says Scurlock also produced a series of portraits of African-American leaders that historian Carter G. Woodson distributed to African-American schools nationwide, but gives no time frame for that. There is a very good chance it was published before 1923, but I haven't found anything that would positively indicate that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WOW, GREAT! No chance for the fakers :-) ! Thank you and congratulations Mutter Erde (talk) 19:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Not doneAbigor talk 19:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Three Dead Navy SEALs in Operation Redwing.PNG[edit]

This file is Public Domain, being released into the Public Domain by as-Sahab who explicitly released it to Archive.org as "Public Domain" following the operation, and nonetheless, Afghanistan is one of two countries in the world that still does not have any copyright law, and US. circ. 38a (s:International Copyright Relations of the United States for the full text) also states that the United States does not recognise any copyright claims anyways. So it's Public Domain nature is not really in dispute. Nonetheless, this image has resulted in both "death threats" and "threats of legal action" against me by Wikipedia users (no, I'm hardly suggesting they should be taken seriously, merely pointing out that it "provokes strong feeling", especially among members of the Armed Forces it seems who believe that American war-dead should never be shown, while showing German, Japanese and Vietnamese war-dead is perfectly acceptable.)

The file shows three soldiers killed following w:Operation Red Wing, the largest loss of life of American Soldiers in the w:War on Terror; but has been repeatedly removed/deleted with claims akin to "THESE MEN WERE HEROES YOU FUCKER", one admin deleted it without any review or request simply stating it was "out of project scope" and that "we already have photos of dead people to illustrate corpses, we don't need any more". He was quickly reverted by another administrator who restored the file, and another user opened a proper "Request for Deletion" (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Three Dead Navy SEALs in Operation Redwing.PNG) where it received 11 Keep votes, and two Delete votes ("Out of respect of the family members" and "Respect and sensitivity are paramount and are most important that any inclusion policy" respectively). Nonetheless, the request was closed as "Delete" stating that a photo of a dead soldier "unreasonably intruded into the subject's family life", which seems like a strange argument since we wouldn't remove images of Buchenwald just because Jewish survivors said it was disgusting to include images of Jewish corpses from the Holocaust, or remove File:Battle of Gettysburg.jpg because photos of dead soldiers are unpalatable. Other members have pointed out that Category:Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse contains far more "degrading" images of people, but if w:Moazzam Begg asked us to remove the photos saying that he may have been the subject in one/all of them, we wouldn't likely delete them just because it affects his "family life" for photos to exist of him with women's panties on his head. File:SaddamSpiderHole.jpg surely "unfairly demeans or ridicules the subject", but I hope nobody would suggest we delete it?

Even of people with surviving family members, we have no qualms about parading File:Zarqawi dead us govt photo.jpg on w:Abu Musab al-Zarqawi despite the fact his family still survives and likely doesn't like seeing an American propaganda photo celebrating his death. I'm in contact with the w:Khadr family often, and I can assure you that File:Omar Khadr getting battlefield first aid.jpg is upsetting to them -- but that doesn't mean we should simply delete the photograph because it might offend some people.

w:Wikipedia:Options to not see an image says "Wikipedia is not censored, and the community will in general not be prepared to remove content on grounds of being objectionable to some people. Wikipedia will also not use specific disclaimers within articles warning readers of such content.", and suggests that users likely to be offended can either tinker with their browser settings, or .js user account settings, to set up work-arounds for themselves personally - without removing "objectionable" images from the project in any fashion.

w:Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_censored likewise says that "However, some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links where they are relevant to the content..."being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content." Sherurcij (talk) 18:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that because of the deletion of Three Dead Navy SEALs in Operation Redwing.PNG, File:Zarqawi dead us govt photo.jpg has now also been proposed for deletion (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Zarqawi dead us govt photo.jpg) stating that it set a precendent that photos of "recently deceased" people should be removed from Commons. I'm sure File:Bodies of Rwandan refugees DF-ST-02-03035.jpg will follow shortly, followed by a complete culling of the project if we let this precedent stand. File:AbuGhraibScandalGraner55.jpg shows a "recently deceased" person, File:AlgiersKatrinaCorpseIoerrorA.jpg shows one from w:Hurricane Katrina, File:IED team killed by premature explosion.jpg shows a dead insurgent in Iraq, File:Deadman.jpg is a dead Vietnamese civilian killed by US forces, in fact I'm sure Category:Soldiers killed in action will face a similar onslaught. Let's use common sense and stand by our policies that Commons is not censored from showing the bodies of war-dead. Sherurcij (talk) 18:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Compare also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Deadwoman.jpg. There will be no end. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fairly disturbed that File:Zarqawi dead us govt photo.jpg didn't get deleted; it's a double standard and grossly against NPOV.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV is not a Commons policy; see Commons:Project scope/Neutral point of view. Agree that it is somewhat of a double standard though; I'm not sure this image (from memory; I can't see it now) violates any law or Commons policy either. The main avenue I could see would be that the identification of the victims arguably makes it an attack directed against the victims' families, and also that it being propaganda would probably make it an NPOV violation on wikipedias if used as a general illustration. Otherwise though at the very least it does serve as an example of Al Qaeda propaganda, and if properly labeled could be used elsewhere I guess. Privacy rights typically terminate on death, so this is not a violation of those. The only other argument is a more vague "human dignity" argument that the families should not have to see it; as mentioned in the original DR there was at least one European case along those lines (but which explicitly denied privacy rights since those had expired at death), though in that case the easily recognizable face made a difference (indicating anonymous photos probably aren't protected this way), and also that the photo was published shortly after the death during the period of mourning (indicating that this type of protection is more temporary in nature). Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the whole video, these three images are the least interesting and useful for Wikimedia projects. They bring very little information about these soldiers, up to the point that we cannot identify them on the images. All this against the privacy right of the victims and families weights easily in favour of deletion. Yann (talk) 13:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are the only existing photos of the worst loss-of-life for American soldiers in a war entering its 9th year...how exactly are they not "useful" or "interesting"? There are no "privacy rights" that surround the photos of persons in a public place - especially not people who are clandestinely entering somebody else's territory -- it's like saying police shouldn't be allowed to distribute the footage of a bank robber caught on camera because it violates his 'privacy rights'. They are not in their house, at the local restaurant or driving their kids to soccer practice, they are soldiers killed in a bloody battle with tremendous historical notability. Sherurcij (talk) 02:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Abigor talk 18:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done I have re-deleted this image. We've had a request from family members to remove them. Abigor should not have restored them without discussing the reasons for their original removal. "Not identifiable" is a completely preposterous notion; especially as each corpse is labeled. Do not restore them. Bastique demandez 16:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:That's why my mom always told me to cross my legs when I wore a skirt.jpg[edit]

I feel that this image was deleted too quickly, without leaving enough time for people to express their opinion. A previous deletion request lead to keep, and it seems to me that the consensus on this DR was also keep; so I really don't understand why it was deleted so quickly. I'm asking for undeletion so that the DR can reach a clear consensus, and to give people time to express themselves on this matter.
Also, I disagree with the closing argument that this is an attack image, as the subject is not identifiable. --Tryphon (talk) 18:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Question What will be the use of this photo ? →Diti the penguin — 23:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding from reading the deletion requests is that it was already being used. I would tend to agree with Tryphon that this image was deleted too early considering the clear opposition to do so and I'd therefore support the undeletion so it can more fully discussed. I wonder if this rushed response may have been influenced by Jimbo's comment which might be perceived by some as supporting the deletion. Deletion requests shouldn't be closed any earlier than seven days where the issue isn't clear cut and the deletion is disputed as is the case here. Undelete and relist. Adambro (talk) 23:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I nearly listed this one myself here earlier, thinking the same thing. While the Flickr user obviously has an axe to grind, if you change the title and remove the original commentary, I don't think there is anything really inflammatory left. In fact it is probably preferable than some others, as the photo does not show a face and is therefore anonymous. As mentioned on the DR, it appeared to be used as a legitimate illustration in at least three articles -- tr:Frikik, ja:パンチラ, and lt:Mini sijonas -- which would automatically mean it falls under project scope, and out-of-scope was the only reason given for deletion, which seems clearly wrong. I can't read those articles, but they seemed OK. Support undeletion. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Restored: as said by TotientDragooned (talk · contribs) right before Giggy (talk · contribs) closes the second deletion request, I don't see why this picture would attack the person. Photos of unidentifiable people are considered ok and the file is in use on tr:Frikik, ja:パンチラ and lt:Mini sijonas anyway. →Diti the penguin — 21:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And now that you've restored it, are you going to change the title and the upload summary to make it less of an attack? --Carnildo (talk) 00:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well… What attack? If you consider (but I'd like to know why) that the filename of the image is attacking the anonymous person depicted in the photo, you are allowed to upload by yourself (I don't have more rights than you for that) a new version, tag the old one with {{Duplicate}}, and I'll delete File:That's why my mom always told me to cross my legs when I wore a skirt.jpg. →Diti the penguin — 08:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, thanks for notifying me, Diti, I appreciate it greatly. Giggy (talk) 14:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request for checking a del request decision[edit]

Can please an uninvolved administrator check this decision: Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Young_mother_(Klashorst).jpg. The deciding admin was not neutral. In the days before closing this request he participated in this discussion where he announced his wish to block the people indefinitely who are involved in the Klashorst-delRequests and also posted that the fact that one of those people is Kurt Jansson (first chairman of Wikimedia Germany) is reason enough for him to resign his membership at Wikimedia. -- 193.200.150.23 20:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Took a look, and agree with end result of the close of the deletion discussion. Cirt (talk) 21:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an admin, but I don't see any issue with this particular Klashorst photo and would agree with the result. Personality rights are typically for use in advertising, which require model releases -- but that is not an issue for hosting on commons, though we add the {{Personality rights}} tag just to make that clear for potential re-users (but really they should be aware of those restrictions anyways). Privacy rights are completely different, where simply hosting a photo could be an issue, but that usually doesn't apply to photos taken outdoors in public (and I don't see any private details actually exposed in this photo, which to the best of my knowledge is where some European Human Rights Court decisions would come into play). The deletion request seemed to be for either privacy rights (does not appear to be an issue) or personality rights (thinking we need a model release), which is not a reason for deletion. From reading some of the discussions, Klashorst photos involving nudity are far more problematic but that doesn't mean that every photo he takes is a problem. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus was pretty clear on this one, the closing admin simply followed it. So even if he happened to feel strongly this way, I don't see how it is relevant in this case. --Tryphon (talk) 21:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the ip making a fuss about this image of all the ones in Category:Baby sling? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the IP is watching ChristianBier since the IP has seen him a little bit too often doing things that an admin should not do (like having copyright violations from Commons users on a wiki operated by him, like him making nonsense renames, like deciding deletion requests where he was involved in the discussion, like keeping images where he has personal interest, like threatening other users with lawsuits, ...). -- 193.200.150.23 01:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Photos by Francesco Caputo[edit]

Please undelete the following files: 

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Arpocrate_sala_biblioteca.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Abbazia_cupola_chiostro.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Maddonna_Murgia.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Palazzo_caldone.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Piazza_del_popolo_2007.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Capitello_6.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Chiesa_monastero_ss._concezione.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Carnevale_asino.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Capitello_abbazia_7.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Antica_Statua_S._Rocco.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Affresco_sala_biblioteca.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Portico_primo_chiostro.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Veduta_giardino_abbazia.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Abbazia_chiesa_e_cupola.jpg

We have permission for them: {{OTRS|2009020510039724}}

w:en:Creative Commons
attribution share alike
This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.
You are free:
  • to share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work
  • to remix – to adapt the work
Under the following conditions:
  • attribution – You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
  • share alike – If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same or compatible license as the original.


--Zureks (talk) 19:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done - Abigor talk 19:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please undelete Image Radio MultiCult 2.0.gif[edit]

I have the expressed permision of the radio and the author. Will be sent to OTRS. --Wikinaut (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK>please post here once that has been sent, and someone will look for it. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No action ->  Not done. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Undeletion request[edit]

File:forumshumen.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) This file is created by me. I own all of the copyrights and I am the only person who can make decisions about it. The file is published for the first time by me here.

Firstly an image must be within our project scope so perhaps you could explain where it might be used. If it is within scope then it would need licensing via OTRS (for instructions follow the link). Thanks --Herby talk thyme 17:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The image is going to be used in an bg.wikipedia.org article about forumshumen.com project. It is not going to be in English. Do I have to reupload my image with {{OTRS pending}} ? --User:SecondShoe

 Not done Will be undeleted after permission has arrived. Abigor talk 23:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pls dont delete file Logosfc.jpg[edit]

Pls dont delete file file:Logosfc.jpg this file is absolutely free. i'm a member in that group (SFC, Sherina's Fans Club)

Did you design the logo yourself? If not, you don't have the rights to release by uploading it here. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would point out that he/she doesn't need to be the designer to possibly have sufficient rights. For example, if the organization was given unconditional rights to the image, and he/she represents the organization, he/she would be in a position to license it. I'm in exactly that position with some photos that were donated to an organizational archive that I manage. - Jmabel ! talk 06:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Question: Why would this image be within our project scope? --Martin H. (talk) 00:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No action ->  Not done. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Undeletion request of "File:Brislington F.C.jpg"[edit]

My name is Jack Rogers and I am a management committee member at Brislington FC (you can check this on the official Brislington Football Club website) and i was the one who added "File:Brislington F.C.jpg" which has recently been deleted due copyright violation. It however was not violating copyright as by me uploading it i was giving permission for yourself to use it and you could have proven it was me by following the user name.

I would be grateful if you could contact me with a reply via email - and hope you will undelete the Brislington FC Logo

Thanks Jack Rogers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackrog (talk • contribs) 15:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No action ->  Not done. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Chip Ario 370DL.jpeg[edit]

Dear sirs,

Why this file was been deleted? I have the permission of the author to show and to use where I believe necessary. Please public again or I requeried to my legal deparment.

Br

Legal deparment Asis Consultores

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.49.219.47 (talk • contribs) 06:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No action ->  Not done. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Adoom album jacket.gif[edit]

This file was not uploaded as "fair use". It's published by GDPL. I requested the creator of the image (my friend) to release it under the GDPL so that anyone can use it. Please recover the file. --Time Fly (talk) 01:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please get your friend to send an email to OTRS confirming that he releases it under GFDL. Once that's done it can be restored. Giggy (talk) 04:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No action ->  Not done. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Request for undeletion[edit]

Please, save the file "biklov.gif" made by and with the permission of the author. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vibec (talk • contribs) 08:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please allways sign your discussion contributions. To File:Bikov.gif: This file has been deleted because someone found it on the web [1] and no other author than you where mentioned. --Martin H. (talk) 17:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Flag of the World[edit]

Flag of the World appears to have been deleted. Please put it back up! We need to be able to find out more about this flag. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.128.18.9 (talk • contribs) 15:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are not logged in, so we cant check your uploads to guess which file is mentioned, you dont mention a filename yourself so we dont know what are you talking about. This undeletion request can be closed. --Martin H. (talk) 17:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Logo s textem.gif[edit]

Dear Sir or Madame,

my purpouse of using logo of my school was used in good will. There is no violation or missed used of this logo because there are no restriction for using it in this good way. It has been used in Facebook as well with no problem.

How can I make it ok with you and use it as a part of my school wikipedia page?

Kind regards

TM — Preceding unsigned comment added by Experiment96 (talk • contribs) 10:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Nobody doubts you have good intentions, but content on Commons must be available under a free licence, and logos are usually protected by copyright. Their used is covered by fair use, which is not allowed on Commons. However, fair use is allowed on a number of other projects (like the English Wikipedia) and you may be able to upload your logo directly there. I have left you a note about fair use on your talk page. However, if it is stated somewhere that this logo has been released, by its copyright holders, under a free licence, please let us know. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 10:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

User:Tameko49[edit]

I have been corresponding with Joe Daly regarding this regarding picture copywrite and info verification. Please undelete because I have provided information that is being reviewed.

Tameko49 (talk) 15:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion has nothing to do with licensing - the page was outside the project scope. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 15:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

tameko49 user page[edit]

herbytyme please go to my discussion page to see comments regarding your deletion reason of out of scope. I believe there is educational value in what was written. Not everything is book knowledge. If people were taught life's lessons there would not be so many dysfunctional people. Tameko49 (talk) 16:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tameko49 user page[edit]

Herbytyme

My intent on this site is to educate the people who are lost and drifting. It is a spiritual education as well as a life lesson. If you would think about the economy and the fact that people are killing themselves as a result you should reconsider this article that I posted. I am trying to educate people on the fact that no matter how low you go or how bad things get there is always hope. You and I as well as everyone on this planet have to live with what we have created. I am trying to counter produce the negativity that this economy has given people by offering hope to those who feel it does not exist. Through my story people can see that if one person can survive and make that climb back then certainly someone who hasn't had so much to suffer and overcome can too. What we need now is survival techniques and this goes beyond book knowledge. You must understand what happens to the world and all those in it is a direct result of the uneducated mind. When did we stop using other peoples stories as tools for living? When did we decide that a persons failures and successes are not educational to others. My story could save someone's life and you and the administrators of this site can allow me this platform to do that. Your site is seen all over the world please won't you be a part of saving the lives of others be helping me to tell my story. I would be willing to you and your administrators writing the article for me if you want but now more than ever we must do something to help stabilize those lives who are on the brink of falling off into hopelessness. You guys are a strong and mighty force that can be used for good. Please won't you help me? Tameko49 (talk) 03:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Tameko49"

Tameko49 (talk) 21:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tameko49[edit]

Is there not a committee that votes to delete. I can't believe you use the voice of one person to delete articles can someone please explain to me how my article was not educational. I even agreed to let one of you guys write it. Is there a humanitarian place on Wikipedia? I can't believe this article is out of scope based upon it isn't educational. In college we studied Human Development and different stages of growth. Doesn't my story fall in there with studies done by Sigmond Freud or Erickson? It is diffently a behavior disorder that was cured!

Tameko49 (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The page was deleted because of beeing out of scope, i agree with the deletion. The page was created for self-promoting purposes only, thats not related to your work on files at Commons and is not very appreciated for userpages here. Btw.: We dont have a process like "hangon" here. keep deleted. --Martin H. (talk) 00:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope.  Not done. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Black_genitalia_2.jpg[edit]

Unproper closing (far too quick!) for DRs that are included in a controversial mass deletion request of Klashorst's pictures. Let's people express their arguments! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Support undeletion to allow a more comprehensive discussion of the issues raised. Adambro (talk) 19:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also support undeletion. These are within scope (work by notable artist), and don't violate COM:PEOPLE. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Abigor talk 23:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Guntmar Wolff[edit]

I have the rights of the picture which was done by the tv. Please undelete page. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Motivationweb (talk • contribs) 20:55, 2009 February 1 (UTC)

 Not done Will be undeleted after permission has arrived. Abigor talk 23:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

AdilsonRamos22.jpg[edit]

Please undelete this file:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AdilsonRamos22.jpg

We have permission for it.

{{OTRS|2008081710011731}}

--Zureks (talk) 17:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Abigor talk 23:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Aerocampus.JPG[edit]

Please undelete [2].

We have permission for CC-BY-SA.

{{OTRS|2008100410002475}}

--Zureks (talk) 20:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Abigor talk 23:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Daniel_galera.jpg[edit]

It looks like we have permission for CC-SA:

{{OTRS|2008121510005064}}

--Zureks (talk) 21:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Abigor talk 23:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

bryan loomis should be on wikipedia[edit]

he is awesome and he makes techno he deserves a page

Hello,
This is Commons we host here free licensed images, if you want to make articles please go to Wikipedia.
thank you,
Abigor talk 06:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]



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

hi[edit]

this was my article after a long research, what is the point of deleting it? any answer?

Hello,
This is Commons we host here free licensed images, if you want to make articles please go to Wikipedia.
thank you,
Abigor talk 06:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

ICATBURGERKING.JPG[edit]

Previously, I nominated all but two images uploaded by Hoocares j.r. (see Commons:Deletion requests/Hoocares's images); among them was File:ICATBURGERKING.JPG, which I nominated because it was originally uploaded to English Wikipedia by a different user (as en:File:ICATBURGKING.jpg) and without a free license. In fact, the author has now re-licensed the file under GFDL (see the image description page history), so I request its undeletion. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 22:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done as this is a derivative work of a toy. If you want this undeleted, please get OTRS permission by the copyright holder of the toy design. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 00:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Image:Christina Aguilera Milan Fashion Show.jpg[edit]

  • Date: 2004. On Milan
  • Uploader: IPoedo
  • Dletion history
  • So, this picture was taken by my brother on Milan, when he was invited at the Catawalk fashion show. He tolds me, that as a momment proof, the song "Dirrty" was played on the Catawlk. This image was donate by him to me, so i decided upload to wikipedia cuz is so beautiful and is a good pic to the Aguilera's infobox. Thanks --IPoedo (talk) 18:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC) Sorry for my bad english[reply]
This is a lie. The image has metadata from the copyright owner (Insight News & Features, Inc.). --Polarlys (talk) 16:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Copyvio. --Polarlys (talk) 16:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


All right. But, i don't know how appear that "Insight News & Features, Inc". Perhaps s from the cam. I'm going to tell you sorry, but the pic is mine. Ok, i'm not going to upload again. So, thanks a lot!. --IPoedo (talk) 16:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC) P.D: I have a lot of pictures from Christina 'Stripped' tour and papparazzi shoots. Of course mine. Maybe upload that. Sorry for the inconvenients.[reply]
The metadata just say this: This image was done with a camera from a news photo agency, specialised on celebrity photos. The uploader doesn't know anything about metadata and that's why he is trying to upload copyrighted images again and again. You also think "copying an image from the web to my harddrive makes me the owner". You are wrong. Stop uploading these images. --Polarlys (talk) 17:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Some DR pages[edit]

Some deletion request pages were deleted yesterday (and removed from the 2009/02/08 DR page), without much of an explanation, which is a rather strange way of closing a DR. I asked the admin who deleted those to restore them, but since nothing happened yet (am I impatient?), I'm asking here for undeletion. Here's the list:

Thanks. --Tryphon (talk) 10:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done I restored the pages because we don't delete dr's but we archive them. Abigor talk 10:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Abigor talk 10:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deletion with wrong reason[edit]

  1. File:Bertrand Blier.jpg
  2. File:Marc Olivier Fogiel.jpg
  3. File:Jean-Pierre Castaldi.jpg
  4. File:Claude Berri.jpg
  5. File:Gerard Louvin.jpg
  6. File:Arielle Dombasle.jpg‎
  7. File:Claire Chazal bis.jpg
  8. File:Frederic Ferrer.jpg
  9. File:Jean-Paul Rouve.jpg
  10. File:Valery Zeitoun.jpg

The files were deleted with the reason: "Missing essential information: source, license and/or permission"

There was a source (an author) and a license mentionned on the files.

I am not the uploader, I came on the file incidentally and noted the model put on these files, as well as the discussion started on the author's talk page. The model used was not really the appropriate one ("Missing essential information: source, license and/or permission"): a quick control of the files shows that the author is mentionned as well as the licence. In fact, the actual concern of the person who put the model was probably that he doubted the mentionned author was genuine.

As the uploader does not seem to be here very often, I gave my opinion on the talk page: there is no reason to doubt that the uploader acted in good faith and is actually the author of the picture: most of the pictures, of relatively low quality, have obviously been taken during a funeral of a french actor, a good occasion for an amateur to take celebs pictures.

I am BTW surprised that files are deleted based on a model that refers to "missing information" that is actually there. Anyway, I think the files should be restored as there is no real reason to doubt their information and their licence. 81.243.181.239 21:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think admins are supposed to be the only persons to judge upon a copyright issue: they are supposed to apply the decisions of the community. The community does not mean "another admin".
These pics have been deleted based on a wrong reason: the lack of author and of licence: there was an author and a licence.
You seem to have discovered that there was in fact a copyright infringement for at least one picture. This means that that pic might have to be deleted, but only after a proper deletion discussion between users, not just after you have said it and "other admins may check your claim".
Please check Commons:Deletion policy#Speedy deletion ("If anyone disagrees with the speedy deletion of a particular file, please convert to a regular deletion request"), and kindly undelete the files so we can settle the issue. Not only you, not only admins, not only me, but users. And by the way, if I saw these images before you deleted them, I do not have a magical memory that allows me to remember all details to check them vs a copyrighted picture  ;-) 81.241.158.180 06:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: as a matter of fact, if you can show that one of the pics is an infringement, I think everyone -including me- will agree on the deletion of all the files as long as the uploader does not demonstrate (for instance with an uncropped pic) that he is indeed the author of some, if not all, the pictures. So I suggest you undelete File:Bertrand Blier.jpg and we concentrate on that one. 81.241.158.180 06:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, I can confirm what Eusebius says herebelow. As File:Bertrand Blier.jpg is deleted, I took a chance at looking for it on the net. looking in Google image on "Bertrand Blier.jpg", and found the pic on page 6 of the results (the result links to a temp page of WP:it). The comparison with the Getty image (ID 83321211) pointed by Lupo leaves no doubt: it is, definitely, not the same picture. I even flipped the getty image and scaled it down to be sure: nope, not the same. Taken at the same place, I reckon, but as it was a public event in open air (funerals of Guillaume Depardieu).... 80.200.123.64 14:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • A heretic thought: how about automatically rejecting or flagging as speedy deletion any JPG smaller than some minimum size? Say, smaller than 15,000 pixels? Or maybe just rejecting/flagging such images if they're claimed self-made? Lupo 20:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted. I also just checked the image of Bertrand Blier and that definitely is not an own work. There is no discussion necessary until you can get the rights from Getty (which you will not get). I kind of like Lupos last idea, because I also had the experience that most of those really small images marked as 'own work' are usually copyvios like in this case. Even the pictures of mobile phones are much larger nowadays and it's easily recognizable if a picture was made with a phone or if somebody took a large image and downscaled it (or got it that way from a website). -- Cecil (talk) 06:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hrem, guys, I hate to be a pain, but I insist you follow the rules: according to Commons:Deletion policy#Speedy deletion, "If anyone disagrees with the speedy deletion of a particular file, please convert to a regular deletion request". It does not say "except if other admins agree with the first admin". It says "If anyone disagrees...".
I am willing to believe Lupo says in good faith that he thinks obvious that File:Bertrand Blier.jpg is a copy. But I need to see the file to be able to say that.
In general, I do not believe it is correct to say that a small file is necessarily an illegal copy. Even if "pictures of mobile phones are much larger nowadays", if the pic is taken from a distance, the interesting subject may appear small in that pic. Not everybody has a super tele zoom, and pictures taken at public events may need to be dramatically cropped to focus on the interesting part (such as a person) who was far away.
I genuinely believe(d) that at least some of the pictures (File:Claude Berri.jpg and File:Arielle Dombasle.jpg anyway) were just that: crops of a larger image taken by the uploader during the funeral of G. Depardieu, a public event.
It is quite possible that this is in fact a fake, and that the uploader cleverly decreased the quality of a copyrighted original.
It makes a discussion on the case even more necessary so that the community is aware of this case.
Honestly, I do not ask that much: I just ask you to apply the rules ("If anyone disagrees with the speedy deletion of a particular file, please convert to a regular deletion request"). Besides, I even proposed a compromise where, instead of undeleting all the files, you undelete only File:Bertrand Blier.jpg and we judge, on the basis of that picture Lupo says is a copy, if the uploader can be considered as a good faith provider. And if he is not, it will be then up to him to prove that other pics are indeed cropped from a picture he took: I believe in "assume goof faith", but not if I can see the person cheated. 81.241.158.180 20:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would go for undeletion and then mass DR here. I've checked out Image:Bertrand Blier.jpg, and actually it does not come from the getty image pointed out by Lupo. On the Commons image, he looks down and his collar points upside. I think these images are more than suspicious, and that very small images like that, without EXIF info, are likely to be copyvios. Probably they should be deleted, but after a DR. I like Lupo's "heretic idea" about small images, but we don't have a rule like that for the moment.--Eusebius (talk) 16:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have pointed out that some of the pics had been taken during the funeral of Guillaume Depardieu. So it is quite possible that there are ressemblances between a picture taken by a professional, and a pic taken by a bystander. Juste before the deletion, I had looked at File:Claude Berri.jpg and compared it with this picture also taken taken during that funeral. As a matter of fact, it is because I had identified the place where the picture had been taken that I thought they were likely to be genuine own work: the funeral happened on November 17, the upload on the 20th.
But maybe I am too confident, and again, the only thing I want is that it is shown to us that one of the pics is a copy from a copyrighted work. And even without that evidence, should the community decide that the absence of EXIF and the size are signs of probable copy and decide to delete except if the author brings an uncropped version, well, I would find it a bit hard, but I would understand it if it is a community decision. 81.241.155.30 18:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Abigor talk 17:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Horned logo.svg[edit]

Please undelete Horned logo.svg, logo of the Debian GNU/kFreeBSD project. The image is now available under the MIT License, see [3] and [4]. · Naive cynic · 13:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Restored. I understood why this logo can be considered as free, but where is it said that the “Debian Open Use Logo [license]” is equivalent to {{MIT}}? Please fix the license if you can. →Diti the penguin — 08:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It is a verbatim copy of the MIT license, as you can easily check. · Naive cynic · 10:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, true, I should have seen it at first. Never mind then. →Diti the penguin — 21:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder how many of the images in Commons:Deletion_requests/Debian_logos are now valid... apparently the Debian license change discussed in that DR came to pass a year later. This image was just one of those deleted. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I restored the now free logos. I'm not sure about File:Debian logo.svg, an original purple logo which was licensed under the {{PD-OpenClipart}} license, but with no source given. File:Skolelinux logo.png ([5]) was released under the {{GFDL}}, but their website doesn't mention anything about licensing. →Diti the penguin — 18:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Christina Rommel[edit]

We have permission cc-by-sa/3.0/de for this file : File:Christina_Rommel_Pressefoto.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) --Zureks (talk) 20:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done - Abigor talk 17:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Favorite-1993.jpg[edit]

I have this picture (Favorite-1993.jpg) from one of the members of the band (the tallest man in the picture). I have his agreement to publish this picture on Wikipedia.

Then you should send the written permission to OTRS (follow these instructions), so that we can keep track of it. Also, make sure you ask him to chose a specific license, and that he is aware that he grants permission to anyone to use the image for any purpose (not just wikipedia). --Tryphon (talk) 21:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - Images will be undeleted after the permission arrives. Abigor talk 17:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

undeletion request[edit]

I would like to make en undelition request for file:Cover502008.jpg I don't understand why it was deleted and want to know. I am currently making this wikipedia page for the company I work for and I am therefore entitle to use these pictures. Please let me know what was wrong with the picture, and how I should upload one without it being deleted.

regards, eurofish09

Hello,
Are you sure about the name? I can't find a log about this file. Please check the name.
Abigor talk 08:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi sorry its File:Cover52008.jpg not Cover 502008.jpg.

It's a cover of a magazine. Either confirm via COM:OTRS that EuroFish is relasing this reproduction of the cover (including the photo reproduced on it!) under a free license, or provide evidence that the magazine and the photo already are under a free license, or upload it locally at the English Wikipedia making a "fair use" claim. "Fair use" is not allowed at the Commons. Lupo 11:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - Image will be restored after otrs permission arrives, or must be uploaded locally. Abigor talk 17:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The photo e public[edit]

Please see that this photo is from Google earth, not a private one. I cant see any violation. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etore.Santos (talk • contribs) 11:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Images from google earth are generally copyrighted (see the notice that appears at the bottom of the image in google earth's window), so you cannot just upload them to Commons; that would be a copyright violation. --Tryphon (talk) 16:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - Like Tryphon is saying: Images in Google Earth are protected by copyright. Please note that the copyright notice was in the middle of the image. Abigor talk 17:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Anna Staniszewska[edit]

i ask for un-deletion of my pictures of oil-paintings of my Mother Anna Staniszewska. My Mother is 87 years old and don't use internet - but I have Her written permission to publish these pictures anywhere in internet. Also, I am the author of Her www page http://anna-staniszewska.art.pl where these pictures are published before.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vallenty (talk • contribs) 11:22, 2009 February 10 (UTC)

In that case you should send your mother's written permission to OTRS (you can follow these instructions). Otherwise, anyone could maliciously upload the content of your website to Commons, pretending to be the copyright holder. These images were deleted to protect your rights, not to annoy you. --Tryphon (talk) 11:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - Per Tryphon, when the permission has arrived a otrs user will ask for undeletion or will undelete it self. Thank you Abigor talk 11:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Polish_crown_jewels_replica.jpg; Polish_regalia_replica_10212008.jpg[edit]

These pictures/images were originally uploaded on http://www.replikiregaliowpl.com/galeria.php; the source comes from http://www.replikiregaliowpl.com/kontakt.html. The author of these photos is Kazimierz Fałowski. It is possible to use these pictures in various media, but it is necessary to cite the source (http://www.replikiregaliowpl.com), and supply the author of the photographs. The owner of the pictures grants permission to use it under Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial ShareAlike 3.0. For details, please go to http://www.replikiregaliowpl.com/kontakt.html.

CongregationOfMarians (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case you should send written permission to OTRS (you can follow these instructions). Evrik (talk) 21:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you copy-paste me? I demand attribution, in accordance to the GFDL license! :-) --Tryphon (talk) 21:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - Images will be deleted after otrs permission has arrived. Abigor talk 21:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jamali[edit]

To Whom It May Concern:

I would like to request a reconsideration of deleting "Mystical Expressionism - Jamali" from entry into your online encyclopedia. Jamali is the founder of the Mystical Expressionism movement, which was a term given to the artist by the acclaimed art critic/writer, David Kuspit, and is based on the practices of German Expressionism, American Abstract Expressionism, and the Russian Avant-Garde Movement. With six published monographs and many published catalogues to his credit, along with a portfolio of 65,000 works to his name, Jamali remains a dominant figure in contemporary art history with his contributions of the invented art styles, Fresco Tempera and Pigmentation on Cork paintings. The artist's work is found in well over 6,0000 collections world-wide, and he is in the planning stages of building a single-artist museum devoted to the Mystical Expressionism movement.

I hope you will reconsider this great artist's inclusion on your website, as it certainly affords an educational opportunity and an extended forum to the discussion of contemporary art.

Sincerely,

An Avid Admirer of Jamali — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamaligallery (talk • contribs) 21:25, 2009 February 10 (UTC)

I don't know exactly what has been deleted, but from what I understand, it is an article you wrote about this artist. So first of all, you should know that Commons is not an online encycopedia: that's wikipedia. So probably your content was deleted for that reason, it is out of our project scope. You might want to try creating this article on wikipedia instead. --Tryphon (talk) 21:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - Just checked, the thing you are reffering to is a article. We don't host articles here, maybe you where looking for this place. Abigor talk 21:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Re: HomePageIntroWiki.png[edit]

File:HomePageIntroWiki.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Hi,

I note my image for my software is flagged for deletion for the reasons of the image being of an unfree software and taken off my homepage at http://www.wizfolio.com. We are the developer of the software and therefore own the rights to the image. How can we make this image available for upload to Wikipedia?

Thank you for your understanding.

Best regards, Tilden Wilson WizFolio — Preceding unsigned comment added by TildenWilson (talk • contribs) 05:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In what sense would the image be within our project scope? Thanks --Herby talk thyme 10:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Herby,

Thank you for your feedback. I understand the Wikipedia article for Zotero and Evernote use an image of their software. I am not sure how we can work to conform our image to the similar standard set by those two wikipedia pages. Do you have specific suggestions?

Thank you. Tilden Wilson — Preceding unsigned comment added by TildenWilson (talk • contribs) 07:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They do indeed. If your website is sufficiently notable to warrant an article on Wikipedia then you will need to freely license any media you upload here via OTRS. For the instructions please follow the link. Based on a quick google & my experience of en wp it seems quite unlikely that the website is notable enough at present. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 14:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but we should probably accept the image now, in case they become more notable later and are less free with giving out their graphics, no? At the very least, we should happily let them give the OTRS permission, even if we don't currently care about the image. - Jmabel ! talk 19:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - The image will be restored after the OTRS permission has arrived. Abigor talk 18:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Image:Martinsburg Sheraton.jpg[edit]

File:Martinsburg Sheraton.jpg I believe that everything required was provided: copyright permission, description, location, etc. Hag2 (talk) 17:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There would need to be some kind of proof that the copyright owner actually released the image under the GFDL. Such permission would need to filed with COM:OTRS. --rimshottalk 18:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - The image will be restored after OTRS permission has arrived. Abigor talk 18:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Press-poster.jpg[edit]

Hello!

I am requesting an undeletion of this image that has been deleted: Press-poster.jpg

I am the designer of this poster and allow Wikipedia to post it up publicly. Let me know if there is any forms you need me to fill out to authorize the use of this poster on Wikipedia. If there are no problems then please help us re-activate the "Press-poster.jpg" image file in your soonest convenience. Feel free to contact me with any questions.

Much thanks, Charles

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Datoe33 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
We need to verify that you are the real author and that you have the rights to release this image in to a free license. Please note that if you place a image on Commons everybody can use your file for personal use, but also for commercial use.
please send a email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org that you have the permission and the rights to release it under a free license. Please make sure you give a way so we can verify what you are saying.
After all that is done you will recieve a email that is oke. After that the image gets undeleted.
Best regards,
Abigor talk 05:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done as no response. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Three Dead Navy SEALs in Operation Redwing.PNG[edit]

This file was uploaded, and deleted without any discussion by an administrator acting unilaterally. An undeletion discussion led it being undeleted as it was within project scope and public domain. It was then proposed for deletion, but received 11 Keep votes and only 2 Delete votes. Another administrator then again acted unilaterally and deleted the photo, again claiming it was morally wrong to host such a photo. Another undeletion request was filed, and again it was undeleted with the note that it was public domain and within project scope and there was no reason for it to be unilaterally deleted by administators with a personal stake in the matter. Then it was again deleted unilaterally by an administrator saying again that the family didn't want it online. So again I am forced to come here to have it undeleted per consensus, project scope and free licensing. To summarise, it is used in the article w:Operation Red Wing, the largest loss of life for American soldiers in the War on Terror, most definitely notable. If the family of w:Nelson Mandela, w:Charles Whitman or w:Abu Musab al-Zarqawi ask us to remove a photo of their "loved one" despite it being within project scope and freely licensed, we do not unilaterally go around deleting it because somebody eMailed us to say a photograph offends them. Sherurcij (talk) 17:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This file is Public Domain, being released into the Public Domain by as-Sahab who explicitly released it to Archive.org as "Public Domain" following the operation, and nonetheless, Afghanistan is one of two countries in the world that still does not have any copyright law, and US. circ. 38a (s:International Copyright Relations of the United States for the full text) also states that the United States does not recognise any copyright claims anyways. So it's Public Domain nature is not really in dispute. Nonetheless, this image has resulted in both "death threats" and "threats of legal action" against me by Wikipedia users (no, I'm hardly suggesting they should be taken seriously, merely pointing out that it "provokes strong feeling", especially among members of the Armed Forces it seems who believe that American war-dead should never be shown, while showing German, Japanese and Vietnamese war-dead is perfectly acceptable.)

The file shows three soldiers killed following w:Operation Red Wing, the largest loss of life of American Soldiers in the w:War on Terror; but has been repeatedly removed/deleted with claims akin to "THESE MEN WERE HEROES YOU FUCKER", one admin deleted it without any review or request simply stating it was "out of project scope" and that "we already have photos of dead people to illustrate corpses, we don't need any more". He was quickly reverted by another administrator who restored the file, and another user opened a proper "Request for Deletion" (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Three Dead Navy SEALs in Operation Redwing.PNG) where it received 11 Keep votes, and two Delete votes ("Out of respect of the family members" and "Respect and sensitivity are paramount and are most important that any inclusion policy" respectively). Nonetheless, the request was closed as "Delete" stating that a photo of a dead soldier "unreasonably intruded into the subject's family life", which seems like a strange argument since we wouldn't remove images of Buchenwald just because Jewish survivors said it was disgusting to include images of Jewish corpses from the Holocaust, or remove File:Battle of Gettysburg.jpg because photos of dead soldiers are unpalatable. Other members have pointed out that Category:Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse contains far more "degrading" images of people, but if w:Moazzam Begg asked us to remove the photos saying that he may have been the subject in one/all of them, we wouldn't likely delete them just because it affects his "family life" for photos to exist of him with women's panties on his head. File:SaddamSpiderHole.jpg surely "unfairly demeans or ridicules the subject", but I hope nobody would suggest we delete it?

Even of people with surviving family members, we have no qualms about parading File:Zarqawi dead us govt photo.jpg on w:Abu Musab al-Zarqawi despite the fact his family still survives and likely doesn't like seeing an American propaganda photo celebrating his death. I'm in contact with the w:Khadr family often, and I can assure you that File:Omar Khadr getting battlefield first aid.jpg is upsetting to them -- but that doesn't mean we should simply delete the photograph because it might offend some people.

w:Wikipedia:Options to not see an image says "Wikipedia is not censored, and the community will in general not be prepared to remove content on grounds of being objectionable to some people. Wikipedia will also not use specific disclaimers within articles warning readers of such content.", and suggests that users likely to be offended can either tinker with their browser settings, or .js user account settings, to set up work-arounds for themselves personally - without removing "objectionable" images from the project in any fashion.

w:Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_censored likewise says that "However, some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links where they are relevant to the content..."being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content." Sherurcij (talk) 18:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - A deletion request is not a vote, its to search a consensus so a administrator can decide what he does,I undelete this image before and I regret doing that. The foundation has received a email from the family from a victim, this image will stay deleted. Abigor talk 17:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I, as a commons administrator, endorse the closure of this request. I'm also a member of OTRS and can endorse the statement left in the deletion log by Bastique, stating that the family has contacted the Foundation to ask that the image be deleted. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So am I to understand that "the family has contacted the foundation to ask that the image be deleted" will in fact be neutrally applied to all instances where families contact the foundation to ask them to remove pictures of relatives? Will this include surviving children of subjects whose wikipedia article currently shows a photo of their facing a firing squad? a photo of their corpse? coffin? Can I trust that this is indeed policy and will be written down and codified somewhere that if w:Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's child contacts WMF, we will remove the photograph of his corpse? Same with relatives of those who died in the Vietnam War? Because we have entire categories devoted to images of dead, such as Category:War victims, Category:Buchenwald corpses and of course my personal favourite - Category:Nazi dead in Nuremberg. So you're confirming that if the family of any of those hanged in Nuremberg write to WMF, the photographs of their deceased loved ones will be removed? Sherurcij (talk) 19:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that we'll play it by ear and handle one case at a time, in a manner acceptable and applicable to each individual concern. On a personal note, might I suggest that you review this editing guideline from the English Wikipedia. I know this is Commons, but I believe that a similar approach to such things would be beneficial here. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how this is "forum-shopping" by any definition of the word, I ask for something in this exact same spot I'm in now, administrators agree and undelete the file. Then it is deleted without discussion. I reopen discussion, administrators agree and undelete the file. Then it is deleted without discussion. I reopen discussion, administrators agree and undelete the file. Then it is deleted without discussion. Now I'm reopening discussion...I definitely don't see how this is "canvassing". As for your idea that we'll handle individual cases differently depending on whether they were "Nazis" or "Americans" whose corpses are being shown, I'd love to see the justification for that. Sherurcij (talk) 20:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In some cases it is not about policies, or about rules it is about doing the right thing. If the family ask the deletion of the files who are we to say no? The families already lost a big thing and have to life with it every day, its not needed for them to know and maybe get even reminded that the photos of the dear ones are on one of the biggest sites of the world. Yes, maybe there isn't a real policy. Yes, maybe you are right and the image is inside to scope, but sometimes you have to look further than the rules. If the foundation will be contacted by other families I am sure the will look at it case by case and do the right thing. I hope you agree with the decision but I am closing the request again. Best regards, Abigor talk 21:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

XWF[edit]

I am requesting a Undeletion of all XWF Related Photographs I am the Operations manager of XWF Wrestling, LLC located in brooksville, FL If proof is requested please contact me at Adelacerna@xwfwrestling.tv or Adelacerna@aurosmgmt.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adelacerna (talk • contribs) 12:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please send proper permission to OTRS first. You'll find the email address and templates required on that page. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 18:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - The image will be restored after the OTRS permission has arrived. Abigor talk 18:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Undelete Image:Goldfields Pipeline SMC.JPG[edit]

I'm doing this on behalf of User:SeanMack

Image:Goldfields Pipeline SMC.JPG was speedy deleted for copyright issues however the user is willing to fix it but no longer has the original of the photograph. The upload wasn't aware of the issue until now. Is it possible for the image to be undeleted so the user can address this issue? Bidgee (talk) 12:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, restored while I kept the {{No source}} but adjusted the date to today. That gives the uploader some time to sort this out. Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 13:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:NewsBrief Aug1 2005 400.ogg[edit]

File:NewsBrief Aug1 2005 400.ogg Was deleted as no source. However it is a wikinews news brief (See Audio wikinews). It comes from (english) wikinews. The copyright was PD as that was wikinews policy at the time it was produced. Bawolff (talk) 03:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see the original (not an admin), but this seems like a pretty straightforward and obvious undeletion if true... Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
I was looking into the deletion and can see some reasons why its deleted. The only thing on the image page was PD], and I am sure we all know that will not be enough.
If somebody can fill in the information template I will be happy to undelete it.

{{Information |Description= |Source= |Date= |Author= |Permission= |other_versions= }}

Thank you,
Abigor talk 06:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for looking into this. Here is the information you requested.
{{Audio upload
|title=category:August 1, 2005
|file_name=NewsBrief Aug1 2005 400.ogg
|date= 2005-08-01
|time= 04:00 UTC
|user_name=Munchkinguy
|accent=Canadian
|sex=male
}}
{{Information
|Description={{en|Wikinews audio news briefs for August, 1 2005. See [[n:Wikinews:Audio Wikinews|Audio Wikinews for more details]]}}
|Source=Based on Wikinews articles from [[n:category:August 1, 2005|August 1, 2005]] and [[n:category:July 31, 2005|July 31, 2005]]
|Date=August 1, 2005 04:00 UTC
|Author=[[user:Munchkinguy]]
|Permission=This file is public domain, as Wikinews content before September 25, 2005 is PD
{{PD-because|Wikinews content before September 25, 2005}}
|other_versions=
}}

Thanks. Bawolff (talk) 06:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Abigor talk 09:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Corwin Collection[edit]

Request for undeletion of:

Dear sir/madam,

I am requesting to undelete images which I have uploaded (which have been deleted due to incomplete information regarding licensing). The copyright license which I have provided for this image via e-mail a while ago was signed off by the daughter of Henri Max Corwin. She is the exclusive owner of the Corwin Collection copyright, which she had inherited after her Father's death, as well as of his portraits and photographs. Is it possible to get more information regarding why this photograph was deleted and whether the information I have just provided you with is sufficient to undelete it?

Best wishes, Luba Sokolovsky -— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lsofi (talk • contribs) 18:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - The image will be restored after the OTRS permission has arrived. Abigor talk 14:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

someone from wikipedia has deleted our GamingXP-Logo (file:GamingXPCover.jpg) from the GamingXP-Wikipedia-entry because of "copyright violation". What copyright violations?

de:GamingXP

Me and my colleagues from GamingXP don't understand why you did this. The logo is our own creation and we really don't understand, what kind of copyrights should be violated, if we publish our own logo at wikipedia. Does this make any sense??? Please undelete the logo.

Regards Tom Borovskis — Preceding unsigned comment added by GamingXP (talk • contribs) 19:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Hello,
Before you can place your logo on Commons you should send permission to OTRS. This email should be send with a email adres that can be verify as a company email. In the email you have to say you have permission and you want to place your logo under a free license.
You have to understand that everybody can use your image when you put it on Commons. Your logo is than free for use on personal and commercial basis.
That permission should be send to OTRS is for keeping your company logo safe. Because we verify that you really want to give the logo free, we can stop people that release the logo but don't have the rights for it.
After you send the email you will receive a response with a ticket number, When you give that ticket number here a administrator will undelete the image. But I am sure there will be no administrator that will undelete the image without the OTRS permission.
Best regards,
Abigor talk 21:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say this one's ineligible for copyright (e.g. {{PD-textlogo}}). Any objections? →Na·gy 21:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it depends what logo it was. On there site I can find multiple logos. But with the most of them I would agree a pd-text Abigor talk 22:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - Deleted image is a duplicate from: File:LogoGamingXP.jpg Abigor talk 14:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Image:Teacher_writing_on_a_Blackboard.jpg[edit]

I´am requesting the undeletion of this file, avaible in the past on flickr, speedy deleted with the reasoning that there was no permission. Howeverthe file has licensed with a free license as can benn see in a requested deletion here. The deletion request was closed when there 4 votes favotable of keeping it, and only one against. Thats why i am requesting this undeletion. 89.152.112.84 12:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue seems to be that the teacher in the photograph asked the Flickr photographer to remove the photograph of him/her/it since they hadn't given any consent to the photograph (taken in a private place) and objected to the use of their likeness. I'm not saying "Keep" or "Delete", just explaining what seems to have been the reason for its deletion. Sherurcij (talk) 14:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a still of an independent movie http://www.yellowlightsmovie.com/, it seems. I find it hard to see how there could have been any expectation of privacy. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done - Restored - Abigor talk 16:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Please undelete Damascus Gate.ogg[edit]

This is my own work. (Ian Sewell) . It is on my website at www.ianandwendy.com/Israel . I release it with Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0

Thank you

Ian Sewell

Support undeletion. I can understand why it was deleted; normally for content which also exists elsewhere on the internet we require an email (see Commons:Email templates) sent to Commons:OTRS to make sure the source website owner is aware of the copying and OK with the stated license. This username is also the same as the website owner, although I think we have had instances were people create fake usernames to pretend they are associated with websites... so we usually like an OTRS email coming from the actual website domain to verify that too. However in this case... this user (Special:Contributions/Isewell) has a long history of uploading images and movies from that website, and very little else, so it seems virtual certain that they actually are the copyright owner, which would mean there is no problem. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The easiest way to solve this would be for Ian to put a note on his website stating that the pictures are cc-by-sa-3.0. That way, anyone can check the copyright status. Also, I don't think that sending a mail to OTRS would be too much of a chore, and it would clarify the copyright of all his uploads. --Tryphon (talk) 22:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - The image will be restored after the OTRS permission has arrived, or when the site gives a license notice.Abigor talk 17:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Undelete Credit Crunch[edit]

I am the author of Credit Crunch, a poem cycle in progress. I would like these poems to be published on Wikimedia Commons.

Thank you,

Karen Margolis (talk · contribs) 10:30, 2009 February 13

Wikimedia Commons is primarily for multimedia used by other Wikimedia projects; purely textual material is generally outside of Commons:Project scope. See in particular Commons:Project_scope#Pdf_and_DjVu_formats. If encyclopedic, text should be put on wikipedia, or if source material then Wikisource, or perhaps other projects like Wikibooks or Wikiversity. If there are formatting reasons why the PDF version is preferable, that may be OK -- although in general there should be a use for it on one of those other projects. We normally don't allow user-made original content of this sort here, though if you are an otherwise established author that may be an interesting case. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - Out of Scope - Abigor talk 16:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

LJ Dickinson photo came from the USGovernment[edit]

As I thought I'd made clear after the first misguided attempt at deletion, the source of the photo of former U.S. Senator L.J. Dickinson was the U.S. Library of Congress - a governmental source, and the same governmental source as all of the other photos of U.S. Senators on their respective Wikipedia pages. See http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=D000323 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikijsmak (talk • contribs) 05:36, February 14, 2009 (UTC)

The Library of Congress holds lots of images, almost all of which are from non-governmental sources and many which are still under copyright; that source does not inherently imply PD-USGov. Same for the Bioguide; especially for older Congressmen, they may have used older copyrighted photos for that page. I had to do some digging, but I finally found the source of this image here; it was probably published in 1921/2 so is PD-US, and anyways also {{PD-National Photo Company}}, so undelete. More images of this person here, and from May 1924 here and here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note -- file to undelete is File:LJDickinson.jpg, I think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done I undeleted the image and placed the source on it. Carl Lindberg many thanks for your work to find the source. Abigor talk 16:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Silver Dollar 640.jpg[edit]

This file was transferred from the English Wikipedia (en:File:Silver Dollar 640.jpg) by its author (User:Ram-Man) and later deleted as a duplicate of File:Silver dollar fish Metynnis argenteus.jpg (which had been uploaded two month earlier). However, the latter file does not state the author and original source (only links to the deleted file on the English WP and the article it was used in). IMHO it should be restored and File:Silver dollar fish Metynnis argenteus.jpg should be deleted as a duplicate instead. --Kam Solusar (talk) 05:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not simply add the relevant information on File:Silver dollar fish Metynnis argenteus.jpg? --Tryphon (talk) 06:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The deleted file was uploaded by its author. So if undeleted, it would be listed in his contributions list and the license and author information could easily be confirmed without the need to ask someone with admin rights on en.WP. --Kam Solusar (talk) 19:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - I am not going to undelete a file to global replace it and delete a other version as duplicate again. I added all information on the image that is still on Commons. Abigor talk 16:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Conrad Shumman[edit]

Hello, I live in Santiago, Chile, and obviously written in Spanish, I hope this is not a problem

En es:Conrad_Schumann, la imagen es de conocimiento publico, muestra un evento histórico, favor desclasificar y volver a publicar, dado que en todo momento, se hace referencia al autor de la imagen, incluso en los artículos previos, relacionados, que apuntan al "link" anterior, se indica que el autor es el Sr. Peter Leibing.

Gracias

Atte.,

Manuel Sánchez — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.41.37.40 (talk • contribs) 10:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
Since you didn't give us a link to the media files where you a refering to I checked the article. I believe whe are talking about Image:Conrad Schumann.jpg, that file is deleted on Commons more than a year age because Commons doesn't accept fair use. If that is not the image you are talking about please give a link to the image.
Best regards,
Abigor talk 16:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The photo was taken by en:Peter Leibing (es:Peter Leibing), born 1941 and apparently still alive. The copyright will not expire until 70 years after he dies, so it cannot be uploaded here. It is on en-wiki as fair use (en: File:Conrad Schumann.jpg), but it seems according to es:Wikipedia:Sobre el uso legítimo, es-wiki does not allow fair use photos, so I'm not sure there is any way to use it there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Vases communiquants et vases communicants[edit]

L'image a été remplacée après modification de son titre sur l'image avec un nouveau titre orthographié correctement pour le fichier.
Nouveau fichier

Désolé, j'aurais dû demandé la suppression de la première version après avoir créé le nouveau fichier.
Cordialement.
H'arnet (talk) 16:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing do to: no undeletion is requested here. Rama (talk) 17:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

[edit]

No idea why this was deleted ("replaceable fair use"), but all flags of Russian subdivisions (Pskov Oblast here) are free of copyright under PD-RU-exempt. --Hardscarf (talk) 19:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
The reason for the deletion is: Hoax not a real flag.
Are you sure about this flag? If its a real flag I am happy to undelete.
Best regards,
Abigor talk 19:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought: He is right: This flag is of Pskov District (part of Pskov Oblast). here both are listed (with mention that this flag belongs to the district), maybye someone confused it with the flag of Pskov Oblast. Actually there is no flag at the moment and also the coat of arms is not official (not listed in the federal register of the Russian Federation because it resembles too much the coat of arms of the historical Pskov Government of the Russian Empire; but the oblast has nevertheless accepted a law in 1995 to use it). According to the vice-governor of the oblast both will probably be talked about this year ([6]). So no need to restore it; its at the correct position at File:Flag of Pskov rayon (Pskov oblast).png. --Hardscarf (talk) 20:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done user withdraw his reqeust. Abigor talk 20:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Undelete Request Re: Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:27_male_penis.jpg[edit]

Hi,

Please take a moment to review the debate at the following url:

[7]

As you can see, several people from the community agreed to keep it, and I feel that the administrator didn't even take opposing points of views into consideration. The article has since been updated, however I was also planning to update some of the anatomy based articles with this media, on Wikipedia, if this could be restored.

Thanks for a second consideration ~

Razor80

Low quality, poorly composed, sad substitute for an image we have ample supply of. Not restored. Bastique demandez 20:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done pr Bastique, feel free to use any image in category:penis for your updates. Finn Rindahl (talk) 20:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Undelete request: File:SquareMaster.jpg[edit]

There is a permission via OTRS {{OTRS|2009021610046875}}

--Zureks (talk) 20:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Abigor talk 13:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Fondazione Amintore Fanfani[edit]

File:Fanfani.jpg deletion[edit]

The image the file is generated from is actually in the Amintore Fanfani's heritage, owned by the Fondazione Amintore Fanfani that desires to share it with the Wikipedia -and, in general, Internet- users.

regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Essedipi (talk • contribs) 07:34, 2009 February 17 (UTC)

You have to send permission to OTRS first, proving that the Fondazione Amintore Fanfani decided to put the image under a free license, and which one (GFDL, cc-by, ...) You can find instruction and email templates here. --Tryphon (talk) 08:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - The image will be restored after the OTRS permission has arrived. Abigor talk 13:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fanfani01.jpg deletion[edit]

The image the file is generated from is actually in the Amintore Fanfani's heritage, owned by the Fondazione Amintore Fanfani that desires to share it with the Wikipedia -and, in general, Internet- users.

regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Essedipi (talk • contribs) 07:38, 2009 February 17 (UTC)

 Not done - same as here Abigor talk 13:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fanfani-Onu.jpg deletion[edit]

The image the file is generated from is actually in the Amintore Fanfani's heritage, owned by the Fondazione Amintore Fanfani that desires to share it with the Wikipedia -and, in general, Internet- users.

regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Essedipi (talk • contribs) 07:39, 2009 February 17 (UTC)

 Not done - same as here Abigor talk 13:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Amy_Studt_Guildford_Tup.jpg[edit]

It looks like there is OTRS permission for this image:

{{OTRS|2009021410000131}}

--Zureks (talk) 08:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Abigor talk 20:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Eclipse,_2002,_ein_Film_von_Herbert_Brödl.jpg[edit]

There is OTRS permission

{{OTRS|2009021710065996}}

--Zureks (talk) 13:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Abigor talk 20:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Deletions by an author's request[edit]

I notice a few of cases (File:Svatyjanpodskalou.jpg and File:Praha, Vítkov, nové spojení.JPG), that an image was speedy deleted with a stated reason: "User request". I didn't know that there exists such a possibility. I can't see such possibility among admissible reasons of speedy deletion in Commons:Deletion policy#Speedy deletion. As far as a bad quality was the real reason of deletion request, Commons:Deletion policy#General procedure says that "Redundant or bad quality files never get speedily deleted." I can't see a reason, why the author of image should have some special right to deletion solution, given he have agreed to an exposure once.

Please see a discussion Commons:Village pump#Deletions by an author's request. --ŠJů (talk) 19:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - The author reqeusted the deletion of his own files and give a alternative image to use. It all about people that give there images under a free license. I see no reason why the deletion was wrong and I will respect the reqeust from the uploader. Abigor talk 21:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Elster Purzler[edit]

I requested that category Elster Purzler for deletion because I thought that this category and Elster Pouter were the same breed of pigeon which is why i requestd its deletion.. However i found out today that they are actually 2 different breeds of pigeon so can I please request an undeletion... My mistake.. thanks.. --Ltshears (talk) 16:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

nevermind i was able to recreate it myself..--Ltshears (talk) 16:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jcyblue.jpg[edit]

We have permission through OTRS:

{{OTRS|2009020210019671}}

Quote from the author: [...] As far as I'm concerned you own that image and can do anything you want with it [...] --Zureks (talk) 08:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Abigor talk 16:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Brandon Paris[edit]

File:Brandon drug addiction.jpg[edit]

Hi there. the image is part of an important biography and is not out of context. all of my songs from me first album which is in wikipedia are about my drug addiction which makes up for an important part of my biography. "abuse", "dying inside". "suicide to my mind" are all songs from my first ablum which you can see from any of the links of my wikipedia page. all the newspaper stories that you see that are referenced are also about my drug addiction. also the image is mine which i give full authority for the public to use. i am not at all offended of the image.

please undelete the image. it is such a majorly important part of my life that i want people to know of.

thank you kindly in advance!

Brandon Paris — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.155.96.218 (talk • contribs) 07:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
Can you please give a link to the image so that the administrators know what you mean.
Best regards,
Abigor talk 12:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

please undelete File:Saygoodbye youtube screenshot.jpg[edit]

Hi there. my name is Brandon Paris, Lead singer of Brandon Paris Band. i filmed and edited a video called Say Goodbye and put it up on Youtube. You tube is Public Domain and i had made that clear. i gave permission for anyone to use that image. the Category is music videos. please help meundelete this video as the song is currently on the radio across Canada and is needed as many people need it to keep informed.

thank you very much.

Brandon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandonparis (talk • contribs) 12:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, YouTube is not public domain. I just want to make that clear.
Regarding your image, you should send permission to OTRS (you can follow these instructions). --Tryphon (talk) 17:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ahh ok. thank you for letting me know. I have sent an email giving full authorization and license to use this image at permissions-commons@wikimedia.org at 9:59pm February 19th. thanks for the advice. Also here is the link to the same image online. (link to image: Link: www.brandonparisband.com/Saygoodbye_musicvideo_screencapture.jpg ) im not sure where the image is now that you deleted the image.

Sincerely,

Brandon Paris — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.155.96.218 (talk • contribs) 19 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Saygoodbye_youtube_screenshot.jpg[edit]

There is an OTRS permission: {{OTRS|2009021910058642}}

--Zureks (talk) 18:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Abigor talk 22:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Piersystems screenshot close.png, File:Pier homepage.jpg[edit]

Requesting undeletion for File:Piersystems screenshot close.png, File:Pier homepage.jpg.

This account is used by PIER Systems to make images related to our company (including screencasts of our product) available for public use. The images mentioned above were uploaded by this account using images from the PIER Systems Flickr page as a source. The Flickr page clearly indicates that the images are under Creative Commons licensing so they can be shared with the public. See here http://www.flickr.com/photos/piersystems. Please let us know what information needs to be included with these images to prevent this from happening again. Contact us if you need further permissions for these images to be available in the Commons. This account is registered using an email address from the official website domain for PIER Systems.

Piermedia (talk) 19:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)PIERmedia[reply]

We do need permission for theses images. You can send it by email to OTRS, following these instructions. --Tryphon (talk) 14:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Importantly the images need to be within our scope as well. I'm not sure where your images would fit. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 15:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - The image will be restored after the OTRS permission has arrived. Abigor talk 22:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Undelete request: File:Digital Signature - How it works.jpg[edit]

Please undelete File:Digital Signature - How it works.jpg. How was this a copyright violation if I've created this file?!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 17 212.25.66.52 (talk • contribs) 05:51, 2009 February (UTC)

  • It was deleted because you claimed it came from http://www.arx.com, which means that anyone could have taken it from there and uploaded it on Commons. Now if you created it yourself for this website, you should put a note there saying that it is indeed freely licensed. Alternatively, you can send an email to COM:OTRS from the domain name of this website, giving permission to use the file under a free license. --Tryphon (talk) 15:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - The image will be restored after the OTRS permission has arrived. Abigor talk 22:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

David N. Donihue[edit]

I own the copyright to images posted for David N. Donihue's page. They have been delteted. This is costing me time. Can you please make it so it doesn't get deleted in the future.

  1. (cur) (prev) 16:06, 19 February 2009 CommonsDelinker (Talk | contribs) m (5,967 bytes) (Removing "Brain_aches.jpg", it has been deleted from Commons by EugeneZelenko because: Copyright violation: Music poster.) (undo)
  2. (cur) (prev) 16:06, 19 February 2009 CommonsDelinker (Talk | contribs) m (6,080 bytes) (Removing "Menu_poster2.jpg", it has been deleted from Commons by EugeneZelenko because: Copyright violation: Music poster.) (undo)
  3. (cur) (prev) 16:05, 19 February 2009 CommonsDelinker (Talk | contribs) m (6,103 bytes) (Removing "Hey_baby.jpg", it has been deleted from Commons by EugeneZelenko because: Copyright violation: Music poster.) (undo)
  4. (cur) (prev) 16:05, 19 February 2009 CommonsDelinker (Talk | contribs) m (6,216 bytes) (Removing "Hold_my_hand_and_tell_me_I'm_Not_Insane.jpg", it has been deleted from Commons by EugeneZelenko because: Copyright violation: Movie poster.) (undo)

please undelete and relink. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Everynameisalreadytaken10001 (talk • contribs) 03:37, 2009 February 20 (UTC)

 Not done - The image will be restored after the OTRS permission has arrived. Abigor talk 22:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hifana with asalato.jpg[edit]

Hi. I'm not sure why this image was deleted.

I communicated (over a number of emails) with the photographer, who specifically relicensed this image and File:Hifana playing at Transmusicales 2008.jpg under CC-BY so that we could use them. See the original at Flickr, which is CC-BY. (He didn't update the caption text (which says "All images are under the law of copyright Hervé ALL.") but he did change the Flickr license tags from all-rights-reserved to CC-BY. Possibly this is what caused the confusion/mistake?)

Side-note: On February 9, I noticed the deletion tag on the image, and according to its instructions removed the tag and added a note at File talk:Hifana with asalato.jpg, which seems to have been ignored when the image was rechecked.

Thanks for any help. (I can forward the emails I exchanged with the photographer, if more proof is needed). Quiddity (talk) 20:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. The problem was that you didn't provide the correct link to the source on flickr, so the image failed the flickr review. I restored and replaced the link with the correct one. --Tryphon (talk) 10:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

category deletion[edit]

Category:Sculptures Gröden[edit]

I have worked for months on these categories and all the related links and now it has been for nothing. The links with all other articles don't work any more. To MHPOV it looks like vandalism. Can you explain this operation?--alpinus5 (talk) 01:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be moved to Category:Sculptures from Gröden now. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Baroque figurines from Val Gardena[edit]

I have worked for months on these categories and all the related links and now it has been for nothing. The links with all other articles don't work any more. Who will fix all the links? To MHPOV it looks like vandalism. Can you explain this operation?--alpinus5 (talk) 01:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Vinazer[edit]

I have worked for months on these categories and all the related links and now it has been for nothing. The links with all other articles don't work any more. Who will fix all the links? To MHPOV it looks like vandalism. Can you explain this operation?--alpinus5 (talk) 01:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Undeletion of File:ESET logo.png[edit]

I don't understand why that logo was deleted while there are dozens of other companies logos available at Commons (like . Could you explain me the reason instead of just deleting it? Why is one logo OK and the other isn't?

Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ignaciosb (talk • contribs) 08:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some logos are ineligible for copyright because they are very simple; in such a case, the are in the public domain and {{PD-textlogo}} applies, allowing us to keep them. Otherwise, logos are almost always copyrighted, thus not allowed on Commons. --Tryphon (talk) 15:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just had a look at the logo, and I think it qualifies as {{PD-textlogo}} (however, you didn't apply any license, which is probably why it was deleted). I'll restore to get more opinions on this. If someone disagrees, please re-list as a regular DR. --Tryphon (talk) 14:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done, per above. --Tryphon (talk) 15:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Six files to undelete:[edit]

There is OTRS permission for these files:

  1. File:Propaganda-1.jpg
  2. File:Propaganda-2.jpg
  3. File:Propaganda-3.jpg
  4. File:Propaganda-4.jpg
  5. File:Propaganda-5.jpg
  6. File:Propaganda-6.jpg


{{OTRS|2008121410008358}} {{Attribution}}

--Zureks (talk) 21:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Abigor talk 05:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Transgeniczerocomic.jpg[edit]

{{OTRS|2008100610005763}} {{CC-BY-2.0}}

{{OTRS|2008100610005763}}

--Zureks (talk) 21:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done by Abigor. --Tryphon (talk) 19:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Undeletion of File:AlquevaLakeDrowned.jpg[edit]

I would like the admins to reconsider the deletion of File:AlquevaLakeDrowned.jpg. I made the photo in the composition myself and carefully added the matching satellite image from Google Earth. Ceinturion (talk) 21:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Abigor talk 18:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

A few files to undelete[edit]

It looks like unresolved OTRS ticket (160 days old) nr 2008091610055176 gives permission for the following files, which were since deleted:

The permission is given as {{self|GFDL|FAL}}.

I cannot verify the validity of the permission without seeing the images. If you think the permission is not valid please contact me on my user page.

--Zureks (talk) 21:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Placed message on talk page. Abigor talk 05:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Abigor talk 18:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I request undeletion of my proposal flags[edit]

Hello, I'm very confused because the user User:Rastrojo in Wikimedia Commons, he deleted all my proposal flags of Mexico without say nothing to me before, so, I wrote him here in Commons, asking him why he deleted my proposal flags, and only my proposal flags and no others proposal flags, and he said me, "Mexico hasn't official flags and I said my flags are officials", but I've never said that, you can verify that in the historial on the pages; For example; Campeche Flag's Historial, [Tabasco Flag's Historial, [Baja California Sur Flag's Historial, Morelos Flag's Historial

Clearly it said in Spanish "Bandera propuesta", or "Proposal Flag", and my flags have been there for long time, and now he deleted them, I really don't want to understanding wrong why exactly he did that.

Images;

Thank You.--Heraldicos (talk) 19:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They were deleted as out of scope as they appeared to be personal design projects with no realistic wider educational value. COM:PS specifies that "Self-created artwork without obvious educational use" is out of scope. Could you explain, pehaps, what more general educational use those images might have? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are more proposal flags on COMMONS, and my flags are educative proposals for the development of the creativity, my proposals follow a similar process used for humanity or Mexican people throughout its evolution, psycho-social norms and art experimenting, the general education used of those images might have with people from that country, I am from that country, and where all the knowledge is integrated, the proposal takes to the experimental verification and the application in the society and the art. Otherwise on es.wikipedia, there are others proposal flags from many countries, but only my proposal flags were deleted. I guess this action makes me feel so down. Thank you. --Heraldicos (talk) 01:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am very sorry but I don't think your designs are in scope here. Other Wikis may have different rules, and you may perhaps be able to load them locally. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you are documenting flag proposals made by someone else, which are... significant... newsworthy... educational, or whatever, that would be in scope I think. If they are just decorative artwork, we give well established users with a significant track record of other contributions some lee way, so that would be another route. But if these are about all your contributions, and if they have no use in the projects, then yes, they probably are out of scope and the deletion probably was valid. ++Lar: t/c 00:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heraldicos, were these being used for some purpose within some other Wikimedia Foundation wiki (such as the Spanish-language Wikipedia)? - Jmabel ! talk 01:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. User-created artwork, not realistically useful for educational purposes. --Tryphon (talk) 15:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Afghanistan-CIA_WFB_Map.png[edit]

Not sure if this is too old to be undeleted or not, but this file is a 2004 version that should have been saved for archival purposes on the English Wikisource (see wikisource:CIA World Fact Book, 2004/Afghanistan). It was improperly deleted and delinked and replaced by a 2007 version. This is not acceptable, since Wikisource attempts to hold maps from the original 2004 publication. --Spangineeren ws (háblame) 02:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly support, the 2004 copy of the book is held on Wikisource, its photos should not be "updated" to the latest context - they can be uploaded as "CIA WFB map2007.png" if desired, but not simply replacing the original images. Sherurcij (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note to say that the naming convention I've been using for 2004 images is Afghanistan-CIA_WFB_Map (2004).png. It would be fine if the undeleted file is renamed along these lines. --Spangineeren ws (háblame) 16:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Was the image marked with the {{Original}} tag? If not, it should have been. It appears it was not an exact duplicate anyways. (It was also deleted once before as a duplicate of File:Afghanistan map.png; not sure if it is an exact duplicate of that or not). Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was not--I created the {{Original}} tag in response to this problem, but had been relying on the CommonsTicker to alert me when the tag was needed for images on the english wikisource. I suppose now is as good a time as any to start at the beginning of the 2004 factbook and tag all of them. --Spangineeren ws (háblame) 19:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. I also added the {{Original}} tag, to avoid future problems. --Tryphon (talk) 15:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Laurenceb.jpg[edit]

Can I get this undeleted? It's been released under GFDL in Ticket:2009021610054946. Stifle (talk) 14:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done, please attach OTRS ticket and fix license accordingly. (now double licensed GFDL/cc-by)Finn Rindahl (talk) 14:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2009-02&oldid=564338479"