Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2009-04

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

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

Image deleted with copyright infrigment[edit]

File:Mobi 03 55 cover.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Posted a cover of the magazine where i am working now, and it was deleted almost immediately. Any way to justify that i have a right to publish it here? Alredy sent an e-mail to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org with this image attached. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teujene (talk • contribs) 14:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The OTRS team did not receive anything regarding this image. Did you mention the exact filename in your email? Also, maybe you should try and send it again without attachment (it's not necessary, and perhaps it triggered the spam filter). –Tryphon☂ 09:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the reason is that i have changed the name of the file. The new one is hosted on File:Cover_mobi_03.jpg and already approved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teujene (talk • contribs) 10:48, 2009 March 31 (UTC)
Good, everything's fine then. I will close this request as it is not relevant anymore. Thanks. –Tryphon☂ 11:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, the file is now named File:Cover mobi 03.jpg and has a valid OTRS ticket. –Tryphon☂ 11:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article Yuleehong was deleted[edit]

The article is about a group of companies In Malaysia. Yuleehong is part of Naza. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keneater (talk • contribs) 08:42, 2009 March 31 (UTC)

Commons is a repository for media files, not articles. You'll probably have better luck at one of the wikipedia projects. See our project scope for details. –Tryphon☂ 08:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, out of scope. –Tryphon☂ 15:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sambuca_Borsci.jpg[edit]

I just noticed that the file was deleted. I probably did some mistake with writing the license field. Should I add the file again and give a correct license, or better to undelete it and then add the requested information about the license? Luckyboy (talk) 20:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like derivative work; you're not the author of the label on the bottle, are you? –Tryphon☂ 20:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I'm not. I'm the photo's author. What about all other bottles photos on wikipedia, i.e. whiskies? Luckyboy (talk) 20:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some labels are old enough to be in the public domain, some are too simple to be eligible for copyright... but otherwise, it's derivative work of a copyrighted artwork and should be deleted (wikipedia might have some images under fair use, but that is not allowed on Commons). –Tryphon☂ 20:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, derivative work. –Tryphon☂ 09:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Jake_Bernstein.jpg[edit]

Please restore the image file I have been trying to get posted for several months, and stop deleting it.. The file is in the public domain, posted and publically accessible. Jake Bernstein

I've been trying to build a simple wikipedia site, jumping thru all the flaming hoops to do so, but I keep experiencing repeated and unnecessary automated file deletions which is getting exceptionally frustrating. - Thor1964 --Thor1964 (talk) 21:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just because an image is available on internet doesn't mean it's in the public domain, so unless you have proof that the copyright holder released it in the public domain, this image is not free. And please don't recreate deleted content, wait for admins to undelete it (or not) after your request. The file deletions are not automated but performed by administrators, in this case because the file is a copyright violation. You should read COM:CB and COM:L for further details. –Tryphon☂ 21:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, no proof that the image is in the public domain. –Tryphon☂ 09:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please someone is ....[edit]

...constantly deleting my images though I own the copyright to these images. How should I EVER be able to create a useful informative page for my band Anekdoten when people are constantly removing my additions.

OK my name is Nicklas Barker. My e-mail is nicklas@anekdoten.se I own all copyright to all music and all photos I will upload from now and on. Our website is www.anekdoten.se. Is there anything more I can do to be able to build an informative site without constantly getting deteled images and info

Hours and I mean ours of work has now been deleted. And im getting VERY tired of this.

Please add this image again and please let me continue to build my page again.

All the best

Nicklas Barker

Nicklas Barker, first of all I would like to apologize for your frustration. Ninety-nine times out of one hundred when a previously published image is uploaded to Commons that image is a copyright violation. We are very proactive in deleting this kind of material in order to protect your rights as an intellectual property owner and to maintain our integrity as a source for "free" images and content. Occasionally well-meaning contributors like yourself are caught in the "crossfire".
In order to register your images with Commons as not being copyright-violation you must e-mail the OTRS team at permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Please send them a list of each image you have uploaded along with a filled out email permission template. If you send it from the anekdoten.se domain it will make everything a lot easier to verify.
I would encourage you not to write about yourself on Wikipedia. It's not something we usually permit due to concerns over maintaining a neutral point of view. You can see Wikipedia's guidelines here: en:Wikipedia:AUTO. Just follow the link. I hope this has helped to clear up this situation. -- J.smith (talk) 02:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done until permission is sent to OTRS. –Tryphon☂ 13:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

It appears I submitted my writing too many times.[edit]

Can I submit the newest version of who I am?

Sherwin Buydens — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sherwin Buydens (talk • contribs) 20:08, 2009 March 23 (UTC)

Hello Sherwin.
I'm not quite sure what you want undeleted, as your account has made two edits, neither of which has been deleted. Also, please sign your posts on discussion pages with four tildes (~~~~). -mattbuck (Talk) 20:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, incomplete request. –Tryphon☂ 13:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Dileme nageur.jpg[edit]

Deletions are becoming more random, it seems. Now commons:Deletion requests/Image:Dileme nageur.jpg was closed for no good reason. Its title was descriptive enough, and as far as I remember, there was nothing wrong with it. It was potentially useful for educational purposes. Please undelete. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse this deletion. The image doesn't seem to be realistically useful for educational purposes and so is beyond the scope of the project. Adambro (talk) 18:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand why it's been deleted, because without context it seems to be a silly illustration, but it's actually a classic example in physics to explain the Fermat principle, otherwise known as least action principle (that is, the fact that light travels using the fastest path instead of the shortest in refraction problems for example). –Tryphon☂ 18:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I restored this image and croped the useless white borders. Please add a detailed description. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Yasser-arafat-1999.jpg [edit]

I cant reproduce this deletion, the copyright status of the image was clear, trusted uploader, deletion was never requested requested without any reason and it was deleted as fair use? There is still a unsourced, unattributed, unlicensed, terrible! local duplicate on en.wp, w:en:File:Yasser-arafat-1999.jpg which should be deleted. Is there anything i missed? We also have File:Yasser-arafat-1999-2.jpg from the same uploader here. --Martin H. (talk) 02:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image was copied from da-wp by Robbot on 15 September 2004. According to its description, this photograph was taken in 3 May 1999 by Hans Jørn Storgaard Andersen in Copenhagen and put under a {{GFDL}} license. According to the provided web link, the uploader is the webmaster of Helle Degn, a high-ranking Danish politician. All this makes it very likely that the uploader was in the position to photograph Yassar Arafat when he visited Denmark. This image was tagged as {{Copyvio}} by ComputerHotline on 11 February 2009 and deleted by Shizhao on 16 February 2009. I fail to see any reasons why we couldn't keep this image. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure seems like it was accurately licensed. Was there any reason given for the copyvio tag? Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was an empty copyvio tag. My guess is that this line: "©1999 Hans Jørn Storgaard Andersen" led people to believe it was a copyvio. It wouldn't be the first time that © got interpreted as All rights reserved. I  support undeletion, because it certainly shouldn't have been speedy deleted. If someone still doubts the copyright status, it should be nominated for regular deletion. –Tryphon☂ 08:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Tryphon. I restored the image. Yann (talk) 13:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, can we get rid of the local duplicate in en.wikipedia? --Martin H. (talk) 13:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tag it with NowCommons at en-wp if it is identical. --AFBorchert (talk) 13:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restored by Yann. --AFBorchert (talk) 13:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pffffft.gif[edit]

This file has been deleted as out of scope, although it was very much in use (still is). There was a deletion request about it, but it was not linked from the deletion summary. The conclusion of this DR is unrelated with the discussion. I would like a conclusion that would be based on the copyright status of the file, because it's the only questionable point. Apparently people have doubts about it, because of the identity of the uploader, but no clear copyvio evidence has been found so far. --Eusebius (talk) 07:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Support It was used, so it was not out of scope. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment There were only negative comments in the DR. IMO, this image doesn't bring anything useful to Wikimedia projects. Yann (talk) 11:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment, if it was deleted because it was out of scope (as stated in the delete reason) also all the other out of scope useless images used on userpages should be deleted, if not it should be restored, I don't like double standards. If there was any other reason for deletion, please name it and state it in the deletion reason in the future to avoid such confusions, thanks, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 13:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Support: I suggest to undelete this image as [..] by custom the uploading of small numbers of images (eg of yourself) for use on a personal user page of another project is allowed (cited from COM:SCOPE). --AFBorchert (talk) 13:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Support In fact it is out of scope, but is largely used in other project like Wiki-pt and the project scope says:

File in use in another Wikimedia project

A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose, as is a file in use for some operational reason such as within a template or the like. Such a file is not liable to deletion simply because it may be of poor quality: if it is in use, that is enough.

An otherwise non-educational file does not acquire educational purpose solely because it is in use on a user page (the "User:" namespace) of another project, but by custom the uploading of small numbers of images (eg of yourself) for use on a personal user page of another project is allowed. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 21:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. As expressed above, the image is in scope because it is legitimately in use on wikimedia projects. Whether it's a copyvio or not is a completely different matter, and if someone suspects it is, they should open a DR for this reason instead. –Tryphon☂ 10:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:2000s.jpg[edit]

This was deleted as copyright violation from http://art-hanoi.com/collection/vnpaper/p107.html. However, the image is just a simple reproduction of a Vietnam banknote and thus not copyrighted by the website. Commons:Currency#Vietnam tells us, that Vietnamese money is in the PD, thus the banknote itself is not copyrighted. So the image is in the Public Domain, which is why I am requesting undeletion. Thanks and best regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 15:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'm surprised by the assertion made at Commons:Currency#Vietnam. It doesn't link to any legal text, but to someone's website which provides scans of vietnamese coins and banknotes for free; that hardly tells us whether vietnamese money is PD or not. –Tryphon☂
It doesn't make sense to delete just one file of the whole bunch of Vietnamese coins and banknotes while the other files with the same source are kept. Keep all or delete all. Regards, --Svens Welt (talk) 20:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Support undeletion; either it's PD or at the very least it is fair use. isn't there a standard policy on reproducing images of currency? Lx 121 (talk) 08:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use argument is irrelevant here. There is a standard policy for currency, which is basically "rely on the local copyright status for currency". I share Tryphon's opinion here: Vietnam is stated as ok in Commons:Currency, but without any references. It looks like someone has just added an "OK" line without the assertion being checked, as it sometimes happens. It would be great to have a legal ref saying that Vietnamese currency is PD, but otherwise we should consider them copyrighted. --Eusebius (talk) 09:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Support I think we should consider bank notes are government work, unless stated otherwise. What's the copyright status of government works in Vietnam? For Vietnam, the information is certainly here, but it is in Vietnamese, so I can't understand it. See also http://news.vnanet.vn/vietnamlaw/ (English). Finally, I found wipo.int (English). This states (article 21) that government works are not covered by copyright. Yann (talk) 10:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The full IP law is here to quote it,

Article 15.- Subject matters not covered by copyright protection

  1. News of the day as mere items of press information.
  2. Legal documents, administrative documents and other documents in the judicial domain and official translations of these documents.
  3. Processes, systems, operation methods, concepts, principles and data.
The application decree says that:

Article 21.- Objects not covered by copyright protection

  1. News of the day as mere items of press information specified in Clause 1, Article 15 of the Intellectual Property Law means daily news briefs which are merely of informatory nature and contain no creative elements.
  2. Administrative documents specified in Clause 2, Article 15 of the Intellectual Property Law include documents issued by state agencies, political organizations, socio-political organizations, sociopolitical-professional organizations, social organizations, socio-professional organizations, economic organizations, people’s armed forces units and other organizations defined by law.
I think this warrants at least for a new {{PD-VietnamGov}} template, and I think currency should be covered as well. --Eusebius (talk) 11:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Template created, I  Support undeletion on this basis. I think currency can be covered. --Eusebius (talk) 12:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted. Yann (talk) 12:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Game is owned by myself.[edit]

I own the copyright to this file File:PFCOUKPocketPopRevengeiPhone.jpg. I own the IPR of the game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neilbalharrie (talk • contribs) 12:13, 2009 March 26 (UTC)

Owning the game does not make you the copyright holder of the game. Unless you are the author of the game, you cannot release this image under a free license. –Tryphon☂ 12:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They are claiming they own the intellectual property rights (IPR) to the game, which would include copyright. It is probably best to send an email, from an appropriate domain, to OTRS (see Commons:OTRS and Commons:Email templates). Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh you're right, that IPR part went right through my brains without being processed. I found this page, and the developer name matches the uploader's nickname; but we still need confirmation through OTRS (an email coming from this domain name would be perfect). –Tryphon☂ 16:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done because OTRS permission is missing. –Tryphon☂ 20:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:KirkDouglasNice-1-.jpg[edit]

Kirk Douglas pic/file was from a Federal Government file.Medal recipient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PendragonU (talk • contribs) 20:51, 2009 March 27 (UTC)

What is the source URL? Did the federal government actually take the picture, or just use a photo from elsewhere? Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to have been taken from here (third image from the bottom). No indication whatsoever that it was taken by a government employee; in fact, most images on that page seem to be ordinary run-of-the-mill publicity shots or movie stills. Page says at the bottom "©2007 All rights reserved". There is no indication whatsoever that this was a governmental website either. Whois indicates that this is a privately owned website (Internet REIT, Houston, TX owns a block of 256 internet addresses at 63.214.247.0/24; registrar was tucows.com). Keep deleted. Lupo 20:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a federal government site. The photo also turns up at getty, with the photographer listed as a "contributor" to the Silver Screen Collection of the Hulton Archive. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, no indication that the picture is a work by a federal government employee. –Tryphon☂ 20:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Undeletion request for File:DoGoodFrontCoverMedium.jpg[edit]

I apologize in advance for my newbieness, however I don't understand why the book cover of my own book, which I own the copyright for, is not an image I can put in the commons.

Am I missing something here, or did the person who deleted not realize that I own it?

Thank you in advance, David — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berman (talk • contribs) 02:00, 2009 March 24 (UTC)

Hi David, thanks for writing. In order to make sure that copyright holders' rights are protected we're proactive in deleting suspected copyright infringements, and we're careful to confirm the identity of uploaders who claim to be the copyright holder. In order to donate your image, you will have to mail a statement releasing it under a free license to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org as described at Commons:OTRS. Let me know if you have any trouble. Dcoetzee (talk) 02:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, no response so far. →Na·gy 21:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Arboles de Decision[edit]

ÁRBOLES de DECISION: Un árbol de decisión proporciona una estructura para desplegar visualmente un problema y después organizar el trabajo de cálculo que deben realizarse. Son diagramas de decisiones secuenciales y tiene posibles resultados. Por otro lado ayudan a las empresas a determinar cuales son sus posibilidades al mostrar las diferentes decisiones y resultados, por lo tanto, tiene un valor que puede se comprado o vendido. Son especialmente útiles cuando deben tomarse una serie de decisiones.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Blanki7a (talk • contribs) 11:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to undelete. →Na·gy 21:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

undelete coronation gospels[edit]

Please upload again coronation gospels. Those images are important for the history of graphic design. Thanks!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.44.26.233 (talk • contribs) 00:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more specific please, which file or page are you requesting should be undeleted? Finn Rindahl (talk) 23:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, nothing to restore. →Na·gy 21:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Photo[edit]

The photo is of me. It's not a copyright violation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.19.101 (talk • contribs) 08:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

Who are you and what are you talking about? –Tryphon☂ 09:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thought I'll check the IP's contributions to see if it was unravel the mystery. The IP posted on the talk page of [possibly the IP is the editor/uploader] User:Starchildsf. The images are File:Starchild-"Samantha"-Drag.gif and File:Samantha-2004-Atlanta-LP-Convention.gif (both images are the same). I support the deletion since to say it's a photo of yourself doesn't mean that you own it or the rights since the photographer owns the copyright of the photograph unless they have agreed (in writing) to hand the rights over to you or have agreed free-use of the photo, also it seems that the sources is questionable since looking at the source it has "Thomas Sipos?" in the source section of the summary with a URL on the image and the image is in a .gif format meaning that all EXIF data is removed (If it was taken with a digital camera/DSLR). If you have permission to freely use (under a Free-use license) the image or have evidence to prove that the photographer has given you the rights please send an email to OTRS. Bidgee (talk) 10:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, per Bidgee. –Tryphon☂ 16:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Essential Eating Sprouted Baking Cover.jpg[edit]

This file had the appropriate permission from the copyright holder and it was approved via email from wiki commons. Thank you for your response. Jaaq (talk) 14:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done, If you sent an email to Commons and not OTRS you will need to send the email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. I have also placed {{OTRS pending}} assuming that you have already sent an email to OTRS, you may also add the link to the OTRS permission if you still have the URL. If no email is received in 7 days File:Essential Eating Sprouted Baking Cover.jpg will be redeleted. Bidgee (talk) 15:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Logo Annah.jpg[edit]

Hi, please re-set the LogoAnnah image because is not a violation of copyright, I'm the author of this graphic and I submitted it as a copyright free file. Thanks mark — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markperna (talk • contribs) 10:03, 2009 April 5 (UTC)

Hello Mark, please confirm your authorship via COM:OTRS to get this file restored. Thanks, →Na·gy 11:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:End of You band.jpg[edit]

Hmm, I own this picture, so what copyright I should select? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruusperi (talk • contribs) 19:38, 2009 April 7 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter that you own it, what's important is whether you are the author (the photographer) or not. Are you? –Tryphon☂ 20:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now. Please confirm your authorship via COM:OTRS to get this file restored. Regards, →Na·gy 07:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Appeal of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cloth embroidered by a schizophrenia sufferer.jpg[edit]

Hello,

I would like to appeal Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cloth embroidered by a schizophrenia sufferer.jpg closed as "kept" by Yann, with the following reason "No valid reason for deletion".

I disagree. Requiring an author to agree with the License seems to me a valid requirement, when copyright is concerned. Teofilo (talk) 20:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you are in the right place for that, we undelete stuff here. I think you should re-nominate it when you don't agree. Huib talk 20:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"If the admin declines to reverse the decision, you can request a review by other admins on Commons:Undeletion requests. " (COM:DEL#Appeal) Teofilo (talk) 08:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes I'm really worried about how little admins give arguments for their decision. This concerns me especially when the decision goes against the arguments which are presented. I think that us admins should, at least in brief, point to the policies we base our decisions on. For example, in this case Yann could have written, in addition to what he already wrote, just "COM:DW" or something. Samulili (talk) 09:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Teofilo (talk) 08:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please start a new request for deletion, this page is used if you don't agree with a deletion. We don't discuss here if a file needs to be deleted, therefor we use COM:DR thank you, Huib talk 10:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Appeal of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Clydon.jpg[edit]

This is an appeal per COM:DEL#Appeal "you can request a review by other admins on Commons:Undeletion requests".

  • I talked with user:Jastrow, who is the last person to express an opinion on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Clydon.jpg on her discussion page and mine, and she said that when saying "all toys are not copyrighted", she had in mind simple toys like yoyos. To my mind a 3-D representation of a steam engine is not as simple as a yoyo. In any case, the rationale for the belief that the toy is in the Public domain should be written on the image's description page, apart from the "own work" statement and public domain release of the photographer.
  • Although the uploader did not write anything pertaining to the manufacturing date of the toy on the description page on Commons, and did not answer the question I asked him on this matter, it turns out that the following information is available on en:Clydon on the picture's caption : "Clydon 13/4 single cylinder oscillating steam engine Circa 1947 - 1951", while the manufacturer's name and the manufacturing place are mentioned in the opening sentence of the article : "Clydon steam engines where manufactured in Enfield, Middlesex, England between 1947 and 1951 by Sydney S Bird & Sons". The duration of copyright being 70 years p.m.a. in Britain, the toy seems to me to be still copyrighted as of now in 2009. Teofilo (talk) 08:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please start a new dr, this page is for undeletion, not for delete request Huib talk 10:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, don't start a new DR, and don't appeal every decision you disagree with. There was a clear consensus, and COM:DW is quite clear about utilitarian designs. –Tryphon☂ 11:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Appeal of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kite festival Vung Tau 2009, 01.jpg[edit]

This is an appeal per COM:DEL#Appeal "you can request a review by other admins on Commons:Undeletion requests".

This seems to be a copyrighted toy : a kite figuring the design of a big cat or tiger. The image should be deleted per COM:DW : "Legally, most toys are art". Teofilo (talk) 09:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please start a new Deletion request, this page is for undeletion. Huib talk 10:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

"Category:Human Bathing" redirected to "Category:Human bathing"[edit]

does the capitalization not matter anymore? i thought that if you entered the wrong caps, mediawiki wasn't smart eough to correct it, & redirects were needed? (yet the redirect page has been deleted) Lx 121 (talk) 08:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's the incorrect capitalization. This isn't Wikipedia where we have redirects going everywhere. This is a multilingual site, and if we started redirecting every variation in every language it would be impossible to maintain. Especially because most our links aren't centralized here - they come from all over Wikimedia. We try and keep incorrectly named pages to a minimum. Rocket000 (talk) 05:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Don't ever go to Wiktionary. Rocket000 (talk) 05:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, we don't want to maintain every possible capitalization scheme; it's a bad habit to rely the existence of that kind of redirects. –Tryphon☂ 06:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:GPLogo.jpg[edit]

Hello,

I work with the GenePattern team at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard in Cambridge, MA. I just tried to upload our logo onto our Wikipedia page and It was flagged and removed as in copyright violation. This, however, is an incorrect flagging. We own the logo and it should be on our wikipedia page.

Please advise if there was some error on the part of the submission and/or let me know what I need to do to rectify.

Thank you,


christopher p. lewis

Informatics Program Coordinator Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard MIT NE30 - 6024 Seven Cambridge Center Cambridge, MA 02142 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lewafer (talk • contribs) 17:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to images which already exist elsewhere, we typically require an email (from an appropriate person, preferably from the website domain) to verify the license, as otherwise it is too easy for someone to upload it and claim "ownership" (either by not understanding copyright laws, or intentionally trying to circumvent them). There have also been cases where people create account names the same as an external domain (without being associated with the organization). See Commons:OTRS for details, and Commons:Email templates for suggested forms. Also, please note that any copyright license would apply to everyone; you can't just restrict it to Wikipedia (though any trademark rights are unaffected; the license is just for copyright). Another option is to upload it to en-wiki directly under a "fair use" exemption, but that would mean it could not be used on other wikipedia languages. Hope this helps. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restored as this logo is in my opinion not eligible for copyright as it consists of text and simple geometric shapes only such that {{PD-textlogo}} applies. However, I still recommend to follow the advise by Clindberg to put this logo under a free license (if you still claim a copyright on it) and to send a confirmation to our OTRS team as my opinion could be challenged through a regular deletion request. Additionally we have the question how this logo fits into COM:SCOPE, i.e. is it likely that it will be used by an article at en-wp or in another Wikimedia project. (I do not know whether it was in use before.) --AFBorchert (talk) 06:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Allison Parris- Appeal[edit]

I would like to appeal the "speedy deletion" tag on the Allison Parris entry- how is it "Outside Project Scope?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewYorkFashionFan (talk • contribs) 00:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about an image, a gallery or a category? Please note that this is a repository for media files and we don't host articles. Articles can be found at Wikipedia. --rimshottalk 10:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to be about Allison Parris, which was a mostly-text article, which is indeed out of scope for Commons (we only hold media for use in other projects). The article should be on the English Wikipedia, though it may have some notability (and self-promotion) concerns there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not done as this is a text article with one picture, much in the style of a Wikipedia article but with a promotional bias. Please consider Commons:Project scope/Pages, galleries and categories#Non-allowable page/gallery/category content and Commons:Project scope#Excluded educational content according to which encyclopedia articles and promotional texts are out of scope on Commons. --AFBorchert (talk) 05:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Naked Body and Two Horses[edit]

The File:Nude and two horses Тома Трифоновски.jpg „Голо тяло и два коня“ http://www.flickr.com/photos/mihalorel/2618266392/

was taken with permission of the Art- Gallery Museum Philippopolis Plovdiv — Preceding unsigned comment added by MihalOrela (talk • contribs) 10 april 2009, 21:10 (UTC) (UTC) May 2008

But the gallery has no right to authorize the publication of the picture, since they are not the copyright holder of the original work of art. --Eusebius (talk) 21:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, the copyright rests with the artist, not the gallery. –Tryphon☂ 05:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Berkeley Center for New Media Recommended Courses Fall 2008.jpg[edit]

This file is totally created by myself. I'm the author of it. I didn't know that I can request undeletion before I recreated it in the commons. I have total permission to use it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taleofyouth (talk • contribs)

Please send the permission to the OTRS-team. If everything is ok with it, they will restore the image. -- Cecil (talk) 22:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done, valid OTRS ticket. –Tryphon☂ 05:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Berkeley Center for New Media.jpg[edit]

I'm authorized to uploaded this file to Wiki. I didn't know that I can request undeletion before I recreated it in the commons. I have total permission to use it. But I'm wondering what information I need to provide so that I can persuade you?

Please see http://bcnm.berkeley.edu for more information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taleofyouth (talk • contribs)

Please send the permission to the OTRS-team. If everything is ok with it, they will restore the image. -- Cecil (talk) 22:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done, valid OTRS ticket. –Tryphon☂ 05:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:BMW 330 kidney.JPG[edit]

I don't see a reason for deletion (reason: "subject of image is copyrighted logo") as long as we have Category:Automobile manfacturer logos and Category:Vehicle brand logos with more than 50 images like File:BMW-Niere.JPG. Not speaking of 1,000 other logos like (e.g. airlines). Seems like we have not a clear guideline so the fate of a logo at Commons depends of the admin who is enganged with the decision wheather to keep it or not. The deletion log of this file is a good example for that.

See also Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2007Jul#Logo? and deletion log. Please undelete. Greetings, --Mattes (talk) 10:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, it was deleted as a duplicate of File:BMW-Niere.JPG, not because the logo is copyrighted (the BMW logo is ineligible for copyright). –Tryphon☂ 11:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK ... that sould have been stated in the log... :-) If it's a duplicate, forget about the request. --Mattes (talk) 11:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It has been stated in the log, just look at the top entry instead of the bottom one :) –Tryphon☂ 11:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're right... Newest entries on top (→ "saved")... --Mattes (talk) 13:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, request withdrawn; the file is a duplicate of File:BMW-Niere.JPG. –Tryphon☂ 11:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. My name is Tom Appleton, i’m a journalist and translator living in Wellington, New Zealand. I feel i am being vilified by being described here as a nutter or straight-out liar. I take exception to that. The TELEPOLIS article in question, which i wrote in German, and which, in its original version i had written in Vienna, Austria, where it had been rejected by DIE PRESSE and WIENER ZEITUNG after first having been accepted, but then the editors felt it incumbent upon them to gather in a second opinion and fell upon Brigitte Hamann, author of “Hitlers Wien, Lehrjahre eines Diktators” who described the article and the book it was based on as complete rubbish. I did try to find another copy of the image under discussion here, in LINZ, Austria, but came up with nothing. There are about three pictures, though, of a young Wittgenstein in a collection of photographs published by Suhrkamp Verlag, and they strongly suggest that the little boy standing not too far away from young Hitler is 99 percent certainly Wittgenstein. I based my article on Hamanns book, on the two different versions of “The Jew of Linz” and some other stuff, so while the article may have appeared hare-brained to the reviewer here, I certainly didn’t just slap down stuff I had cooked up in a dream. Citing the wolves baying at my heels in Telepolis as authorities that could suitably shred my reputation may be how your reviewer joyfully experiences his synapses in red-hot rotation, I find this style just very tiresome. These are ad hominem attacks that are totally uncalled for, and I demand that they be retracted. I guess I ought to add that DIE PRESSE had no problem publishing another, different article of mine on Wittgenstein (though curiously rejecting a portion based on original research in Puchberg, where Wittgenstein had worked as a teacher and had come across, to all intents and purposes, as a total creep.) Nor did the newspaper have any problem publishing over a 100 other articles I wrote. The same is true for WIENER ZEITUNG, and to a lesser degree, DER STANDARD, SÜDDEUTSCHE ZEITUNG, DIE ZEIT, and other publications. So I feel no need to have myself portrayed as some kind of bumpkin here, even if this writer or others elsewhere feel that one, several, or all of the articles I published, particularly in TELEPOLIS, are nonsense. As for Kimberley Cornish, I found everything he has written or published (e.g. in QUADRANT) but also in private communications, totally interesting and lucid, so feel completely justified in my assessment of his book on Hitler and Wittgenstein.



Witt_and_Hitler.jpg[edit]

Please undelete File:Witt and Hitler.jpg. This image was the subject of a book, so it was thoroughly researched, and no photographer's name has come up. Yet AFBorchert closed Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Witt and Hitler.jpg because he thinks it is not "safe" to apply {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}. If this one does not qualify, I do not know what would. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No thorough research took place in this case. I'm the only one who found out that this image was published in 1938 but I have never seen that publication and hence I have no idea whether that photograph was published anonymously or not. There was another another DR for a duplicate where Löris told that this photograph has apparently been taken by the teacher who died in 1934 according to a information he obtained from the German Federal Archive. Unfortunately he didn't forward this to COM:OTRS. I invite anyone interested in keeping this image to research this such that we can hopefully restore this image at some time. --AFBorchert (talk) 08:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your reference for the 1938 publication date is the same article in German that I had referred to in the DR. That article also says that Hitler had had the school records destroyed. It is practically inconceivable that the 1938 publication would have mentioned the name of the photographer. There is a teacher in the photo, and that person may have died 1934, but that person did not make the photograph. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was just refering to the statement by Löris in the other DR. If Löris' claim is correct, the photographer is not anonymous. Given the current state of information and seeing that nobody initiated any additional research within five months after the DR was filed, I had unfortunately no choice but to delete this image according to COM:PRP. Sorry. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If Löris' claim is correct, the photographer died 1934, so PD-Old. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed but this needs to be verified or forwarded to COM:OTRS. I would be more than happy to undelete this image as soon as this has been done. --AFBorchert (talk) 11:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we should AGF here. We know who is the photograher, we know when he died. We don't require OTRS for all and every image, why this one? Yann (talk) 19:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of saving space, I hereby incorporate my comments in Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Witt and Hitler.jpg by reference. In addition, I wish to note that the Telepolis article by Tom Appleton is useless as a reference on the photograph. I quote the relevant paragraph below:

Kimberley Cornish, der australische Forscher, der bei Paul Feyerabend studiert hat, ging der Geschichte des Fotos unbefangen nach und stellte fest: Es stammte aus einer Broschüre über "Die Jugend des Führers" aus dem Jahr 1938. Es zeige den oberen rechten Ausschnitt eines Gruppenbildes, schreibt Cornish, und scheine demnach eine Fotografie nach Altersgruppen zu sein, aber kein Klassenfoto. Die Namen der Abgebildeten seien heute nicht mehr eruierbar, da der Diktator nach der Machtübernahme dafür sorgte, dass sämtliche Unterlagen seiner früheren Schule zerstört wurden.

Translation:

Kimberley Cornish, the Australian researcher who studied with Paul Feyerabend, pursued the history of the photograph without preconceptions and determined that it came from a 1938 brochure on "The Youth of the Führer". Cornish writes that it shows the upper right cropped portion of a group photograph and that it therefore appears to be a photograph arranged by age group but not a picture of a school class. He also writes that the names of the persons pictured cannot be determined today because after his taking of power the dictator made sure that all records from his old school were destroyed.

Thus, Appleton merely relates what Cornish claims, without making any effort to check.
However, neither Cornish nor Appleton possess standing as authorities. Their supporters view them as entertaining fantasists, their detractors consider them raving nutters. (See the reviews cited in The Jew of Linz and Ein Jude aus Linz, see the comments under each of Appleton's Telepolis articles.) I myself would go a step further and quote Mary McCarthy:

Every word [they write] is a lie, including and and the.

In the event that the copyright issue is eventually cleared up, I again refer to my recommendation in the Deletion Request, namely that uploading of the photograph be allowed only in its uncropped and especially un-annotated form.
--Goodmorningworld (talk) 10:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The image (and crop) itself is discussed in the articles you mention; if the copyright is OK then both the original and the crop are perfectly fine to keep as they are way within scope. The articles say the identification of Hitler is not in doubt, so that would indicate it is a valid photograph, and the mentioned source is probably accurate. The controversy apparently is the identification of another person, which (from reading the articles) Cornish's theories rest on and is highly disputed, so any image description (if undeleted) should document that situation certainly (and I'm not sure an annotated version which seems to unambiguously identify the other person is appropriate). The article on w:Leopold Poetsch mentions that several teachers from Linz sent him photos in 1936, which would fit with the claim, and cast doubt on it being anonymous. Although if the teacher died in 1934, not so sure. It would be helpful to have the teacher's name (many of which seem to be known), which must be known if the death date is also known. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WAIT i'm missing something here: ARE WE TALKING ABOUT AN IMAGE OF ADOLPH HITLER AS A CHILD, THAT WAS REPRINTED IN SOME BOOKLET IN 1938?

if so, the image was taken 100+ years ago; even if it's a crop of the original image (non-copyrightable derivative work), it's gotta be public domain by now. whether it was republished in a booklet in 1938 or not is IRRELEVANT

the copyrights for the original image would be counted from the time the original picture was taken, 100+ years ago. presumably it was used for some purpose, when originally taken.

assume the photographer was an adult during hitler's childhood & the author can't (by any reasonable measure of likelihood) have been alive recently enough for that to be a concern here.

assume photographer unknown, with an image that old, & it's PD

unless i have completely misunderstood the subject/contents of the photograph under discussion here?

ANY picture of hitler, taken in his childhood would be PD by now (long before now!).

Lx 121 (talk) 11:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, not really. PD-old in Austria means that the author must be dead at least 70 years. Hitler started school in Linz in 1900. If the photographer died within the next 38 years, only then it is in the public domain in the source country. But if I did not overlook anything in this discussion we don't know who the photographer was, thus we do not know when he died. As an example: if he was 40 at that time, he would have to die latest at age 78. 38 years is too short a time span to be sure that he is dead. The only other possibility is anonymous. If it is impossible to figure out the photographer then it could be anonymous. But for this recherche needs to be done first (not just online, but also offline in the archives in Linz). -- Cecil (talk) 12:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
i haven't see the pic; hitler is 10-11 in it? (also keep in mind that presumably we are talking abt austria-hungary here; not the modern state of austria. does anyone know how the copyright laws are applied backdated to the K.u.K. era? & are we sure it's linz?)Lx 121 (talk) 08:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From the age the children look like on the image (over 10 years old) it has to be Linz. Also only then one of the six children can be Wittgenstein. According to the image description it happened in 1903 which would fit my age estimation. The laws from back then are to be found in the ALEX here if one knows what exactly to look for in the scans. -- Cecil (talk) 08:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lx 121, yes you are missing something: read through the discussion at Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Witt_and_Hitler.jpg. Furthermore, it is unlikely that young Wittgenstein appears in the picture.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 14:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Goodmorningworld, how nice it is to hear from you again; whether or not that is Ludwig Wittgenstein standing in the same group as adolph hitler is a matter of some interest, but it is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to the core issue of this debate. The fact that the image was REPRINTED in a booklet in 1938 is also irrelevant. Also, none of the modifications made to the image in 1938 are copyrightable; enlarging, cropping, & adding a couple of arrows with the presumed names of the persons being pointed to, is not remotely close to being enough to base a copyright claim on. we are dealing with the ORIGINAL IMAGE taken, it appears, in 1903-4. It is clearly a posed group photograph for some purpose, clearly multiple copies would have been made at the time, & circulated, at least among interested parties. The only issues at stake here (& slightly absurd, at that) are: a) who was the photographer? & b) when did that person die?

there doesn't seem to be ANY reliable information about who the photographer was, & i did do a pretty good search. if we assume the picture is anonymous, it's PD, easily. if we can find out who the photographer was, & IF the rules of copyright for works created in K.u.K. Austria-Hungary are being correctly interpreted, then the photographer would have had to still be alive in 1939; at least 35 years after this picture was taken. that doesn't seem all that likely...

right now, it appears that NOBODY KNOWS who the photographer was; all of the discussion about the image, the book, etc. & NO ONE has come out with any credible claim for the identity of the photographer.

the pic is being used freely. the author of the book does not seem to have had any issues with copyright claims on the image. the author of the book did not provide any identity for the photographer either.

ALL OF THIS MAKES A REASONABLE BASIS FOR A CLAIM OF ANONYMOUS AUTHOR; especially when combined with the absence of any other record providing a remotely credible claim of authorship of the image.

If someone did claim knowledge of authorship, & if that introduced the possibility of some future claim of copyright on the picture, it would certainly be interesting to see such claims proven!

THE ONUS WOULD BE ON THE PERSON CLAIMING TO KNOW WHO THE PHOTOGRAPHER WAS. Any kind of copyright claim, based on a claim of authorship by somebody who had died recently enough to still have copyright, would be one more step removed. Some legitimate heir to the author's estate & interests would have to come forward. NEITHER OF THESE THINGS SEEM VERY LIKELY TO HAPPEN.

The picture is more than 105 years old (isn't there a maximum total time limit provision on copyright that might apply here?); the author is UNKNOWN; the U.S. gov't archives have copies of the picture, their copies ARE PD; presumably the image was in the possession of the Nazi-era german gov't as well, i have no idea on how they would have handled copyright for it.

There isn't any reason to believe that anyone is going to come forward with a serious claim of copyright on this photograph.

This whole debate borders on the ludicrous; at the very least the pro-delete arguments could be considered as excessive caution, in seeking to avoid any remotest, slightest, hint, of a chance, of a possibility, of a copyvio.

The original deletion debate was FLAWED & MISLEADING in how it addressed some of these issues.

Be Bold!

UNDELETE

('nuff said; after i have slept & eaten, i shall come back & trim the excesses off of this overlong post; goodnightworld)

Lx 121 (talk) 17:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. There are two clear reasons for undeleting the image:

  • 100-year rule - which we don't have
  • assume good fait - which we don't follow when the freedom of an image is reasonably questioned.

Furthermore, I concur with User:AFBorchert.

See also: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:WittRealschuleCrop.jpg. Samulili (talk) 16:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Undeletion of Category:Garden railway[edit]

This category shall be a subcategory of Category:Rail transport modelling. This is a very specific part of the rail modelling, which have its own pages:

Unfortunately, I have by mistake recreated this category but in plural 'Category:Garden railways' and listed a bunch of images, so I think the singular category shall be recreated and the plural category forwarded to the singular one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PRZ (talk • contribs) 18:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, per convention most of our categories referring to objects are in plural form. Regards, →Na·gy 21:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, per Nagy. –Tryphon☂ 20:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Ejaculation series.jpg[edit]

Hello I was wondering why this was deleted? This is my own work, just like others similar to it. Thanks Terry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terrys049 (talk • contribs) 08:25, 2009 April 11 (UTC)

Well the closing Admin deleted without reason (See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ejaculation series.jpg) but I've left a note on the Admin's talk page. Bidgee (talk) 15:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm curious about this one; usually, no closing argument means the nominator's reason or the arguments in the DR are the reason for the closing decision, but I can't believe that "this is pornography" was the reason why Abigor deleted this file. –Tryphon☂ 16:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I recieved a note that there was a undel request.. I checked the file but I am almost sure I was  Keep but maybe I pressed the wrong button, I don't know.. But I support undeletion, but a other admin can press the button. I am very sorry for this error. Huib talk 16:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like Template:Nopenis would apply here, and with this user's other uploads. I don't see this more than vanity, and I agree that we generally do not need more images of this sort. If this user showed interest in uploading a more diverse sort of content, I'd be more inclined to assume good faith here.-Andrew c (talk) 01:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, just because the DR wasn't closed correctly (purposely?) doesn't mean we automatically have to undo it. Normally, I force myself to defend images like this, but I can't really assume good faith of users who first categorize their user page in "Category:semen" and then try to add a video of a cumshot to it...  Oppose undeleting. We are not an outlet for exhibition. Rocket000 (talk) 02:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Main reason I informed the closing Admin is that I knew they wouldn't just delete with the reason stated by the nominator and thought it would be best if the closing Admin knew about the undeletion request. I also agree with the above comments, We have media files of ejaculation (including one video) and can't see how a series of four images would better display for educational use. Bidgee (talk) 04:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Support undeletion.

multiple reasons:

1. deletion was improperly handled. that should be good enough by itself; undelete & then argue the matter out properly, reach consensus & act on it accordingly

2. there is no WMC POICLY: WE HAVE TOO MUCH OF THIS STUFF. if WMC implements such a policy, there is a great deal of redundant material on WMC that should be removed. we don't have these kind of debates about pictures of train, planes, or automobiles.

this is also no WMC POLICY: I DON'T LIKE THIS, SO I WANT IT GONE

WIKIMEDIA IS NOT CENSORED.

3. material related to human sexuality is legitimately educational. the above anti-comments illustrate NNPOV personal opinion NOT any WMC policy, or objective rationale.

4. Re: Andrew c: Template:Nopenis is NOT WMC policy. it is one user's opinion & creation. it does NOT reflect consensus, or WMC policy, & it should not be used to justify deletions. one might as well say: "i'm deleting this, because it offends me & feel like deleting it"

there is a basic principle at stake here:

if a media file meets WMC criteria, do people have the right to delete it, simply because they don't like it, or find it offensive?

if we go down that path, how far do we go?

i can think of many, many items on WMC that could be deleted on that basis.

in the end, there wouldn't need to be a WMC anymore, if we do that.

UNDELETE

Lx 121 (talk) 09:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, per Rocket000. I amended the DR to clarify the situation. –Tryphon☂ 20:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:SamusSSBB.jpg[edit]

I uploaded the image but maybe I chose a wrong licence. I wanted set a licence like "Fair Use rationale" but I didn't know how to do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thescientist85 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 2009 April 12 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but fair use is not allowed on Commons, so you cannot upload this image here (you can upload it locally on en.wp however). See COM:L for details. –Tryphon☂ 23:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done No fair use images are allowed on the Commons. -- Avi (talk) 02:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:The OBX Season 1.jpg[edit]

Hello,

I am requesting the undeltion of The OBX Season 1.jpg. It is claimed that the file is "Derivative work: screenshot", however it is a screenshot of my own work. I am the author and creator of the material in all forms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmbosstone (talk • contribs) 22:46, 2009 April 12 (UTC)

Just because you got the screenshot doesn't mean you own the copyright since the makers of the program own the copyright, therefore it can't be uploaded on Commons without permission from the copyright holder. Bidgee (talk) 02:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This screenshot is needed for an article Corel Paint Shop Pro for software history section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fido-stats (talk • contribs) 14:14, 2009 April 13 (UTC)

If it's needed then upload the screenshot onto Wikipedia under fair-use since the file can't be uploaded on Commons. Bidgee (talk) 14:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another (non-deleted screenshot of it) is: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/94/PSP100.png/180px-PSP100.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fido-stats (talk • contribs) 02:09, 2009 April 13 (UTC)

en:File:PSP100.png can't be uploaded as is a copyrighted software (Rights are owned by JASC), photograph could also be copyrighted (Owned by the original photographer) and is a fair-use image. Bidgee (talk) 02:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but how en:File:PSP100.png "can't be uploaded" when it's ALREADY uploaded and listed in an article ? Fido-stats — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fido-stats (talk • contribs) 14:14, 2009 April 13 (UTC)
Read "can't be uploaded on Commons" (as opposed to on the English Wikipedia). --Eusebius (talk) 14:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
en:File:PSP100.png is uploaded on the engilsh Wikipedia under fair-use in which Commons doesn't allow. Bidgee (talk) 14:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done No fair-use only images are allowed on the Commons. -- Avi (talk) 02:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Caraway hattie.jpg[edit]

Image was speedied due to no source information--source information was there (U.S. Senate, public domain, I can see it in my edit summary), although the source URL seems to have died in the interim. —BorgHunter (talk) 21:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What was the original source of the image? PS you could have gotten a speedier response by msging me on my talk. Maxim(talk) 23:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Web page URL, Raw image URL. Both 404ed, although I know they both existed when I moved the image from en to here. BorgHunter (talk) 17:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Internet Archive has the page, though not the image. http://web.archive.org/web/20080210173902/http://lincoln.senate.gov/html/hattaway.html --GRuban (talk) 16:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Digging a bit deeper, I found a 1914 photo on the Library of Congress site, which I uploaded as File:Hattie_Caraway_1914.jpg ; and that we already have two other images, the official Senate-commissioned painting, File:HattieCarawayPortrait.jpg, and ... a small image from the Arkansas History Commission, which seems to be incorrectly tagged US Federal Government. :-( Commons:Deletion requests/File:Senator hcaraway.jpg --GRuban (talk) 16:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Same image as File:Senator hcaraway.jpg which is now under deletion discussion. -- Avi (talk) 17:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Porto leone catering logo.JPG[edit]

I can't find the reason for deleting the file — Preceding unsigned comment added by PortoLeoneCatering (talk • contribs) 09:12, 14 april 2009 (UTC)

Hi. It has been deemed out of scope, because the deleting admin considered it was only promotional in nature. Additionally, it lacked a proper authorization from the copyright holder (Porto Leone premium catering). --Eusebius (talk) 09:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done -- Avi (talk) 17:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Old photos deleted by User:ChrisiPK[edit]

ChrisiPK is on a deletion spree of old photos. Please undelete File:Hugo Schneider 1888.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log). Why not use normal DR procedures? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image does not violate any copyrights!

Yes, agreed. Restored. Yann (talk) 05:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Restored by Yann. -- Avi (talk) 17:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

ATCUAE images[edit]

Please undelete file and all related files uploaded in my section as these pictures belong to us, the ATCUAE where Mr Mohammed Ben Sulayem is President. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthonyatcuae (talk • contribs) 07:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These deleted pictures are apparently File:Desert-Challenge-2009.gif and File:Promoting-Desert-Challenge-.gif. Both were deleted by Pymouss44 as potential copyvios as they were copied from this site. Please note that we need a confirmation sent to our OTRS team in cases where the same images are to be found at web pages as anybody could come, copy these images, upload them to Commons, and claim them as their own work. The images will be restored as soon a valid OTRS confirmation is available. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done May be restored if valid permission is sent to OTRS. -- Avi (talk) 17:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Media needing categories of Moika River[edit]

The category should help with work Commons. See {{Moika River}}.--AndreyA (talk) 19:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"content was: '{{Moika River}}'" Why not just recreate it? Rocket000 (talk) 11:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I will recreate - again will remove. To discuss as easier to make, that did not delete.--AndreyA (talk) 04:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you try talking to the deleting admin? Rocket000 (talk) 04:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is formally right - in a category there are no images. I wish to receive offers of community what to write on category page that the participant who has visited it understood, what for it is necessary, even if in a category there are no files.--AndreyA (talk) 07:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why not wait until it's needed to create it. That's usually how it's done. Files can be placed in non-existent categories. There's many people around here that dislike empty categories. So even if it gets restored, it may get deleted again if it stays empty. I'll personally restore it if I see something in it. Rocket000 (talk) 08:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, not much content to restore. As pointed out by Rocket000, could be recreated when needed. –Tryphon☂ 18:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Dean Ford & The Gaylords 1964.jpg[edit]

Dean Ford & The Gaylords 1964.jpg is not a newspaper scan. The picture is a scanned copy of a picture we commissioned and have owned since 1964,as a founder member of the original band Dean Ford & The Gaylords. Please reinstate - contact theoldcomposer@btconnect.com for verification.Theoldcomposer (talk) 17:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)theoldcomposerTheoldcomposer (talk) 17:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please send an authorization e-mail to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (everything sent there is kept private). If everything is ok, the picture will be restored. --Eusebius (talk) 17:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done, valid OTRS ticket. –Tryphon☂ 18:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Some file[edit]

I did not mean to click on fair use, I meant to click and send copyrighted but by the time I realized the fair use was chosen, it had been already processed. How do rechange the licsense so that I can put the correct licsensing information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srmckenzie (talk • contribs) 22:03, 2009 April 13 (UTC)

Which file are you talking about? Can you replace the title with a link to that image? –Tryphon☂ 07:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the user means File:Malibu Campus.jpg which is tagged as {{PD-ineligible}}. However the permission field links to this terms of Use page that only allows non-commercial use (emphasis mine):
"Although the site is freely accessible, Pepperdine does not intend to cede its respective rights, or anyone else’s rights, to the materials appearing on the site. Unless otherwise noted, Pepperdine owns all materials, including images, illustrations, designs, icons, photographs, video clips, and written and other materials that are part of the site. To encourage a free and continuous flow of information, users are permitted (which may be revoked at any time) to download the material in the site for private, non-commercial use only, without alterations, as long as the copyright notice appearing on the downloaded material, “Copyright Pepperdine University 2009. All Rights Reserved” is included. By downloading material from the site, the user agrees that there is no explicit or implicit transfer of ownership rights."
I could not find where the uploaded image came from but this page has what looks like a smaller version. 84user (talk) 07:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, we're not even sure what this request is all about. And if it is about File:Malibu Campus.jpg, see 84user's comment. –Tryphon☂ 18:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Marmalade 1968.jpg[edit]

This picture was commissioned by the band Marmalade, (previously known as Dean Ford and The Gaylords)in 1968.A member of the band holds the original negative in possession and has done since 1968. This information also applies to Dean Ford & The Gaylords 1964.jpg, which was also removed. Please reinstate both.Theoldcomposer (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)theoldcomposerTheoldcomposer (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done, valid OTRS ticket. –Tryphon☂ 18:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deleted punkcast images.[edit]

File:1242yyy13.jpg

I am the author of these images and uploaded them in good faith.

I'm sorry I missed the the deletion notices.

Many of the images I upload are also used on my punkcast.com site. I only upload them here if I intend to GFDL them for wikipedia use. It says that I am the author of punkcast on my user page. They are framegrabs and I usually provide links to the original videos for reference. I don't want to GFDL the entire contents of the original postings. Do I really have to OTRS every single one? Is there some wording I can use when posting or in my user page that will work?

Wwwhatsup (talk) 02:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you maybe make a note on your website somewhere that confirms you are this user or that some screenshots are being released GFDL'd here. Rocket000 (talk) 05:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, no follow up on the request. –Tryphon☂ 15:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Requesting undeletion of Image:1998_World_Youth_Games_logo.png[edit]

Identify the file: Image:1998_World_Youth_Games_logo.png

State the reason: Dear Wikimedia team, I am requesting the undeletion of the above file. I created the above file in photoshop so I could use it on the wiki page. However, it got deleted. Is there any other reason for the deletion that I am not aware of or was it deleted by mistake? Pls let me know. Thank you.

Sign your request: Moiza (talk) 06:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this logo is protected by copyright, and making a reproduction of it, even by yourself, is a violation of this copyright. --Eusebius (talk) 06:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what are my alternatives? There is no way I can change the Olympic rings or the name of the city and year where the games took place. What if I change colors or if I take a picture - would that work? Also, since you stated this is copyrighted, do you know who is the holder of such right? thank you. Moiza (talk) 17:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, there's no way you can change a copyrighted image in a non-copyrighted image. You can invent another logo, but it won't be useful because it won't be the logo of these games. About the copyright holder, I'd guess it's the organizer of the games. BTW, I was only talking about the "non-ring" part of the logo: apparently the rings themselves are public domain, see File:Olympic Rings.svg. --Eusebius (talk) 17:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Eusebius, thanks for your info. I did remove the logo of the Games from the picture as you mentioned it is copyrighted. However, even though I removed the logo, my picture was deleted again by another guy there Image:1998_World_Youth_Games.png. If I removed the copyrighted logo, why was it deleted?

In addition, my PHOTO also got removed today File:1998 World Youth Games Miska.jpg. Dont know what's the issue here - can you also help? Thx again Moiza (talk) 23:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have uploaded the original logo to the English wikipedia. You can click the "upload" link on the left hand navigation to upload files on en.wiki. See en:File:1998_World_Youth_Games_logo.png As you can see from, say en:File:Singapore Youth Olympics 2010.png, it is pretty standard to have official, non-free olympic logos on Wikipedia. Each image has a copyright tag, and an accompanying fair use rationale explaining why we think it is OK to reproduce a non-free image on Wikipedia. Note, non-free images are not ok for the Commons under any circumstance. I hope this helps. I deleted the bear image because you simply took a photo of someone else's copyrighted material. Just because you may own the photograph doesn't mean you own the copyright since the photograph would qualify as a derivative work. You might be able to upload the image on en.wiki under a fair use claim, however I am not sure what that claim would be. You can read up on the non-free content criteria over there if you want more info. Feel free to contact me on my user page (e-mail normally isn't the best way for me). -Andrew c (talk) 00:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, could you please add any more information you have about the logo to the image page for the file I reuploaded at en.wiki? For example, having the source information is important. Where did you get the file? If you view the edit page for the image, there are a number of blank fields in the form that you could help fill out. Thanks.-Andrew c (talk) 00:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, copyrighted logo. –Tryphon☂ 22:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Image165-ptune-focus.jpg[edit]

Dear people at Wikimedia:

I posted a photo to the Wikimedia and it was improperly deleted. I have the rights to that picture and other pictures taken in the same day-place. Its a historical picture of a recognized muralist and his friends. There is no reason to delete it and it meets the guidelines set by Wikimedia. I also wrote the statement that this pic can be published. I request you to please undelete it.

Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceichiban (talk • contribs) 19:30, 18 april 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I assume the picture has been deleted because the admin had doubts about the authorship of the photograph, and because you haven't answered the notification put on your talk page. For this matter, if you affirm that you are the photograph, we must believe you. On the other hand, the background of your picture is a work of art. For this picture to stay on Commons, we need an authorization of the artist. See here for the procedure about such authorizations. --Eusebius (talk) 19:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, please send permission to OTRS if you want the file restored. –Tryphon☂ 21:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Undelete File:Ralph_Hindo.jpg[edit]

Deleted without reason Hindo was leading influence in the early formation of Ridgway, PA. Only the Gillsis family attempts to discredit this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsh18 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 2009 April 26 (UTC)

 Not done, out of scope as an obvious forgery. Don't waste our time with it. –Tryphon☂ 21:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2009-04&oldid=113105023"