Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2009-11

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.

Categories[edit]

Please undelete:

The above were deleted despite Commons:Rename a category#Should the old category be deleted?. The categories about these churches can't be found any more in the language they are most likely being described in. -- User:Docu at 07:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Long-standing convention followed by user:Foroa, etc., has been to delete non-English category names. Commons:Rename a category is years old and I see no discussion about this subject on the talk page. So, one person unilaterally thought keeping non-English names was a good idea two years - it should obviously be rewritten since that is not actual practice. Category redirects are very poorly implemented by MediaWiki and people always add photos directly to the soft redirects. Wknight94 talk 11:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reading you write /Quote/ "Renamed in a way that maybe 20-30% of the world can read, as opposed to around 0.2% of the world." /End Quote/ suggests that you have little interest in helping users find the categories in a language other than English. Besides, you seem to forget what enabled you to rename them in the first place.

Before you deleted them, one could search for them in English and Czech, now that you moved the files and deleted them, just in English.

If there is a problem with RussBot, you might want to bring it up in the appropriate forum, but I haven't seen any problems with it recently. If you disagree with the April 2009 update of Commons:Rename a category#Should the old category be deleted? you can bring this up in the relevant forum as well. -- User:Docu at 12:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of the correct forum, this isn't the correct forum for what you are trying to accomplish. Undeleting these won't turn them into redirects. After the categories are renamed, they are left empty. If you'd like to get SieBot to turn those into {{Category redirect}}'s, you should contact the bot's operator. Otherwise, category redirects would have to be done by hand, and you are just as capable of doing that as I am. No undeletion needed. Wknight94 talk 14:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, if you don't mind, I will create the redirects. Even if it happens once in a while, I think one should should avoid to re-create recently deleted categories, at least not in a large number. I will suggest Siebrand to add the option. -- User:Docu at 15:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like someone already made the request at User_talk:Siebrand#.7B.7BMove_cat.7D.7D_additional_parameter -- User:Docu at 15:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We tried the above mentioned bot change request already several times.
  • Commons has more than 700 000 categories by now, within less than a year we will have one million categories. It is not realistic to have redirects for all possible naming variations in all languages: those redirects should be in the main naming space where redirects work properly. Personally, I add often redirects for translations of basic names. This creates additional work for broken redirects maintenance (unfortunately, the move bot does not correct references to the moved categories)
  • The referenced category names are deliberately ignoring all Commons naming rules, I will continue to delete categories, after their move, that ignore the basic Commons naming rules to avoid training people with bad naming.
  • People that worked on those categories can find in these cases the names back in the edit summary of the deletion log (hopefully in all deletion edit summaries in the future), but probably even more easily when just jumping to the city category where those churches are belonging to. So for locals, it is easier to find the proper name via the village/city than trying to find the correct English or local name. --Foroa (talk) 16:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we try to focus this on the above categories? Can we agree that it's important to know the name of the building as in the title of the deleted category to find anything meaningful on the web and elsewhere. Elsewhere is obviously not someone's deletion log. -- User:Docu at 06:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note a substantial difference between such category which labels only one concrete object (its name have more or less a character of proper noun generally, it is stated in majority of local maps - not only in 0,2 % etc.) and such category which labels a larger range of objects (in case of them, there is no reason to state the original name). It seems that the rules about category naming don"t reflect this fundamental distinction. When I searche some Hungarian or French building or other local concrete phenomenon, I will always use the original name primarily, not some attempted translations to English or to my language.
The second reason: as long as we don't manage to correct all links from wikipedias (as I can see, we have even problems with internal links within Commons too), we break the usability of such category for most of Wikipedia users. Such massed category rename should not be started until this problem is solved. --ŠJů (talk) 09:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If a proper description is added to the categories in relevant languages it should be possible to find them via search. I agree we do not need category redirects for all possible variants. But in gereral we could consider to have original language + main languages. So if we are talking about the capital of Denmark we could have Category:København, Category:Copenhagen etc. but not variants in every language of the world.
As stated, agree for basic words and names. It becomes different with complex names: ask two people of the same town to write the name of their church and you will have two (slightly) different names (not to mention the in/of/from and Saint/st./st/san variations). I did just a check, and unfortunately, the search function does not seem to find the texts which are in the interwiki's: that would help significantly. --Foroa (talk) 11:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was stated above that deleting categories is a "... ong-standing convention ... " First I'd like to know if that is documented anywhere, because I find it counterproductive. I have also put category redirects in after Foroa has deleted a category because I thought should be a redirect. BTW, would someone undelete the cats in question and then just redirect them? Thanks. Evrik (talk) 14:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closed. Wrong place here. Create a {{Category redirect}} if you think this is required, creating a category redirect not needs undeletion. --Martin H. (talk) 20:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

files by Demrak[edit]

all files uploadedby me is my own work or licensed by Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License from official website speclit.com (Russia) Please recover all files uploaded by me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Demrak (talk • contribs)

Hello, I think you need to send a permission. Please see COM:OTRS for details. Thanks, Yann (talk) 17:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, i want to use my logo on russian wp (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Speclitlogo.jpg) like this file (http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A4%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BB:Transtelecom_logo.png). please undelete File:Speclitlogo.jpg

Thank you.--Demrak (talk) 18:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have to upload it directly on the Russian Wikipedia, not here on Commons. You still have your own copy of the file, right? --Eusebius (talk) 19:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Commons doesn't accept NonCommercial licenses, so you'll need to upload to the wiki that you want to use it on, assuming it accepts fair use. Stifle (talk) 15:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. The undeletion request asks for undeletion for the reason that something is licensed under cc-by-NC-sa, that fails our basic licensing requirements, so nothing to do here. --Martin H. (talk) 19:57, 30 October 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]

File:NICOLE_FORMESCU_(ANDERSON).jpg‎ (170 × 212 pixels, file size: 6 KB, MIME type: image/jpeg)
_____________________
Full resolution‎ (1,577 × 2,400 pixels, file size: 805 KB, MIME type: image/jpeg)
_____________________
File:Aiyana-Lee jpg-small.jpg
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexander Fluhberger (talk • contribs) 08:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Question This means? You ask for undeletion of two files not yet deleted and you not give any reason? Images can be found on other websites in same or larger size. --Martin H. (talk) 09:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not done, no reason given. --Martin H. (talk) 19:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Supa Strikas Deletion[edit]

To whomever it may concern,

Having started my first forray into Wiki land - I went to work on the Wiki page for the comic that I work for - Supa Strikas. Having been given permission by the owners of the copyrighted material produced here, I started uploading images and improving the text on the wiki page.

I was questioned as to the validity of my ownership of the copyright for the images, and promptly sent back a reply from the company email explaining that I did have permission to post the images.

Yet - without further warning - ALL of the images I posted were removed. Why is this? Is there no onus within the Wikiverse to tell a poster that the content they have tirelessly posted is to be withdrawn without proper notification? As I have proved my right to use the images I would like to know for what reason they were removed, and, if possible, could they please be put back!

Many thanks,

Sebastian Stent

Strika Entertainment

email: sebastian@strika.com

✓ Done undeleted and linked to the current ticket. Don't forget to add {{OTRS pending}} in the "permission" field of the images pages for which you have sent a permission, so that they don't get deleted. --Eusebius (talk) 17:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

delete an image[edit]

I tried to see the result of an animated gif

but pushed the upload- 29-10-2009 I apology Loki11 (talk) 16:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)loki11Loki11 (talk) 16:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done I deleted the file as requested. --MGA73 (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:NL-BE 9-3 1934.PNG[edit]

I've uploaded File:NL-BE 9-3 1934.PNG on the Dutch Wikipedia, and a bot transferred it to Commons. I can assure you that the licence is okay, the source was also in the filedefinition (a book called "75 jaar KNVB"). Can somebody place the file back?

Kind regards,
nl:Tommo, 20:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done - please check info and add what might be missing. --MGA73 (talk) 20:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Friedrich1763o.jpg[edit]

What was wrong with this file? A better name might be Friedrich II, by Ziesenis (1763) 78.55.3.252 13:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There must be a mistake in the file name you gave us. There is no such file, there never was (as far as I can see). --Eusebius (talk) 13:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's the last pic in Johann Georg Ziesenis. 78.55.3.252 14:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The file doesn't exist on Commons, and never has. If you want it in this gallery, you should transfer it from de.wp first. –Tryphon☂ 16:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, done. Thanks 78.55.3.252 17:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Bonnie_SG.jpg[edit]

I think this closure was a bad thing for three reasons:

  • It was disputet so there is no reason to do it as a speedy. Speedy should only be used in clear cases.
  • Deletion reason is bad. First just "deleted" later with a link to the OTRS. Good arguments should be given especially if result is disputed.
  • Closing admin was very involved in the debate and wery eager to get the file deleted. Closing admin should not be involved in the case.

File was in use and it is important that we think things over before we delete. Deletion requests are often used in later deletion requests and I see this as an invitation for photographers, people on the photo and users to get images deleted. --MGA73 (talk) 22:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was a kind of order to delete from the Office. Image is still on a free license on Flickr here. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"File was in use" at the end of a gallery. It is one of many of the same kind of image on Commons and doesn't add itself to the project. The license of the file is irrelevant because this was a good-faith takedown request by the subject (and probable copyright holder) of an image. We try to do the right thing in many cases. In most cases where the model of a nude photo is asking that we remove the photo I think it's perfectly acceptable to accede to his / her wishes. Of course this is a case by case situation, but deleted it doesn't harm the project and lends itself to good will among possible future contributors. Bastique demandez 23:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason to assume that subject holds the copyright. But please grant this request (and the uncropped version too). The subject is not a model, she is not posing, she is not showing skin on her website, and the photo is not even visible on Flickr anymore. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pieter, I would be inclined to grant that one as well, but on the subject's request, not on Burning Man's regulations. Bastique demandez 01:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently that subject asked the photographer to remove the photo from Flickr (which was done), then the photographer came here and asked to delete it. That was the third nomination for deletion; the first two were nominated due to Burning Man regulations and closed as Keep, but the third time it did come from the photographer (but of course a lot of the general Burning Man regulation arguments got regurgitated). Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I personally agree with the deletion. While I concur that the image is correctly licenced, and that we had every right to use the image, I think common courtesy should prevail - Bonnie would rather her image not be used, we have plenty of others with which to replace it, what's the big fuss? -mattbuck (Talk) 01:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. We don't really lose anything by deleting this file. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As an OTRS agent and a commons admin, I agree with this particular deletion per OTRS ticket #2009102910059965. It's the correct thing to do in this instance, and I have reviewed the ticket. I don't see the deleting admin as being 'very involved' - they're just routinely following up an OTRS issue - Alison ❤ 08:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The main problem is not that file was deleted but that it was done as a speedy by an involved admin and with no good reason. Not whis DR could serve as an open door to delete all images where photographer and/or person in a picture requests. The first request has allready been made above. Further if this is accepted this also could serve as a "feel free to close DR's before 7 days if you would like your opinion to win". Also I see no order "from the Office". If such order excisted it should be made in public so everyone could see it.
As for the OTRS it should not be used as an excuse to delete. The model asked if we would be kind to delete the image so she could use it on her pay-per-wiew-webside. That is as simple as that. There is no copyright issue at all. She just asked us nice if we would be kind enough to deelete. Is that an reason to speedy? Why was this request so important that it could not wait 7 days? The Burning Man-discussion was open for several weeks why is this different? --MGA73 (talk) 13:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose undeletion. Everything was done fine and the outcome was the right thing to do, regardless of process. I am not familiar with Burning Man discussions but if the circumstance was identical to this, it should also be deleted. Wknight94 talk 13:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Everything was done fine..." I do not mind you vote for a delete but I do not understand how you can say everything was done fine. Pieter Kuiper voted keep. Would it have been fine if he has done a speedy keep and thereby preventing others to comment? --MGA73 (talk) 14:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No it would not. Wknight94 talk 14:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Closing admins rely on their judgement. We don't keep things just because one person says so. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if you are interested in proper process, the proper process here would have been to inform the closing admin of this request. I have done so now. Wknight94 talk 14:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did inform closing admin on IRC yesterday that I did not agree but he would not listen. I gave him a good chance to correct this mistake. He just said xxx told me to delete. I have told him several times before not just to speedy delete any image he does not like. Both on his talk page and on IRC. Look at his deletion log. He has way to many "ooops" and wrong deletions. This admin does not understand how commons works. He thinks that if you make a mistake you can always undo as you can on Wikipedia. That is wrong. When mistakes are made on Commons they affect Wikipedias around the world and perhaps also a lot of other websites. Commons is perhaps the most hated Wiki in the world because of admins nuking without thinking. So to be an admin on Commons you must understand that it is very bad to delete images by a mistake. Also I still not have seen any good arguments why this DR could not be open for a few days more before it was deleted.
Second I still fail to see why it is ok to speedy delete but not to speedy keep. You totally miss the point. It is not the result I oppose but the way it was done. I find it very disappointing that there is little support to tell deleting admin it is not ok to speedy. How can we trust that the agreed upon procedure will be held if we allow admins to brake it just because we think it was an image we could live without? --MGA73 (talk) 15:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, this is the most hated wiki in the whole world?! Citation needed. But moreover, you seem to be on a crusade of one. You've not gotten a single support here. I'm inclined to also ignore all rules here and close this. Wknight94 talk 15:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose I actually oppose undelete, because the image is not uniquely educationally important. However, I do not really like the process with these random interventions from the Office that are immediately acted upon. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again. I saw no proof that "office" was involved. If they were please do it in open. Wait... Office just told me to undelete.... --MGA73 (talk) 15:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted - this has just turned in to an argument. The deletion was correct, the process may have been wrong, but there is no case for undeletion just so we can delete it again in a week. Quit the hyperbole, it's tiresome. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Death Note, Book.svg[edit]

Recently I uploaded my vectorial book of the Death Note, but fastly it was deleted without a warning or something and then I wrote to the person who deleted it to ask a possible reason about this action [1], and the reason was "I deleted it because of copyright violation. It seems that your image was taken from [2] without permission.". As you can see, they are not the same image and my image is vectorial. --Keepscases (talk) 22:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see the SVG, but vector versions can often be derivative works of bitmapped originals, and would be violations because of that. However, if it was just of the cover of the book, which just has lettering, then in the U.S. that is not copyrightable and should be fine (see {{PD-textlogo}} for reasoning). Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Restored I can see the SVG, and it is a fairly good facsimile for the general concept, in that it is a black square that resembles a book, and says "Death Note" on it. I know what w:Death Note and that it is copyright, but as Clindbert pointed out, this falls under PD-Textlogo. This "font" is not nearly complex enough to warrant it's own copyright, I could scrible (on paper) something like that in fairly short order w/o any expert skill. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 02:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Original contents of Category:One Hundred Famous Views of Edo[edit]

The background of this request is to be found here. In summary: Melesse found high resolution variants of these artworks on the web site of www.brooklynmuseum.org and uploaded them to Wikimedia Commons as {{PD-Art}} applies. See the original information template of one of these images: 

 {{Painting
 |Title = Kinryuzan Temple, Asakusa
 |Artist = {{Creator:Hiroshige}}
 |Year = circa 1856–1858
 |Technique = Woodblock print
 |Gallery = Brooklyn Museum
 |Location = Brooklyn, New York, USA
 |Source = http://www.brooklynmuseum.org/exhibitions/online/edo
 |Permission = {{PD-Japan}}{{PD-Art}}
 |Notes = From the series ''One Hundred Famous Views of Edo''.
 }}

All these images were deleted (take File:99 - Kinryuzan Temple, Asakusa.jpg as example) out of courtesy to the museum because low resolution variants are available as well and the high resolution scans were on the web site just published by accident. I do not know if this was initiated by a request of Brooklyn Museum but I am surely not happy when a 4,394×6,296 resolution scan gets replaced by a ridiculous 384 × 580 resolution. As far as I can see, the uploader did neither request this deletion nor did he consent to it, he was just informed of the deletion. The deletion comments just state deleting print-quality version in favor of images donated by the Brooklyn Museum of Art, as courtesy without any reference to policy. Hence, I ask for an undeletion of the whole series. --AFBorchert (talk) 08:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was not a copyright question, but a political one, and decided above our capability as Commons users. We can technically undelete these images, but WMF might not like it. It was more of an en:WP:OFFICE action than anything else. Patrícia msg 09:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the museum did actually get in touch with the foundation, which is how we became aware of the situation. The museum will be sending some somewhat lower resolution versions for us to use (still working on the details), since aside from the resolution, the color and details of their scans are quite superior to what we have currently. --SB_Johnny talk 10:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was a shame to lose some high resolution images, but the action was correct. In the long term, establishing our good faith and building our relationship with museums such as the Brooklyn Museum is much more important in advancing our goals than the fate of a few specific images. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am amazed. The foundation's {{PD-Art}} ignores copyright laws of European countries, but when a museum in the US comes with a request to withdraw images that are legally free, wikimedia just obliges. Why these double standards? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I want to believe that, if an European museum would ask the same thing, we would take the same action. Our current PD-art policy is highly insatisfactory in this aspect. I believe we should rethink it, but that should be done elsewhere, not on this undeletion request. Patrícia msg 10:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) Absolutely. While the circumstances of this case are a bit unusual, I think we would do the same thing for any other museum or institution. The situation here is that they accidentally put these files on the public server, resizing using IMG SRC variables rather than actual thumbnails. They were all duplicates of images we already have, though (again) better quality, and they're going to provide us with lower res scans of those high quality versions. Our goal with all such institutions should be to encourage them to become active in providing materials for our community. --SB_Johnny talk 11:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am a bit with Pieter Kuiper here. There may be some talks going on with the Brooklyn Museum which might bring both more scans and also building a good relationship with them, but the the first impression is bad. Yann (talk) 11:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the attempts to explain the background of this action. I am, however, not happy with actions like this on behalf of the Foundation taking place silently and even without referring to the foundation. And we do not know even how this was handled or decided at Foundation level. This is not a privacy related issue where I would understand when things are done this way. Yes, this resides on the servers of the Foundation and we respect that, of course. However, we are also bound to some extent to our uploaders who trust us that we handle their uploads in conformance with our policies. It is common practice at Commons to ignore copyfraud claims and we even went to the extent to ignore local law if it does not support {{PD-art}}. Please remember the case of the National Portrait Gallery. So far, we just deleted images temporarily to protect individual users who were threatened by museums and uploaded them afterwards through other accounts (see, for example, this case where the deleted image was uploaded by someone else). I personally have no good faith in museums whose idea of open access is restricted to 384 × 580 thumbnails that do not allow to inspect these pieces of art. A growing number of museums, archives, and libraries understand open access as support of high resolution images. Examples include Codices Electronici Ecclesiae Coloniensis or Irish script on screen. The Brooklyn Museum should be encouraged to do the same. --AFBorchert (talk) 13:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's important to maintain good relations with organizations, just as a general practice. In this particular case, it seems a good thing to me to acquiesce to the request to remove the ultra high resolution images, since they were not intended to be shared with the public. The museum has indicated they will share better scans than the ones that remained behind. Please remember that the museum expended funds in creating and hosting the images, and it is courteous to respect that investment. (As a note, GPL licenses allow for requesting reimbursement of costs in making material available... this is an extension of that principle, to my way of thinking). If our {{PD-art}} template, or the policy behind it, needs fixing, we should do that. But that's a different matter than this. ++Lar: t/c 15:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a comment: These are no "ultra high resolution images". Depending on the size of the original scans with maximum resolution tend to be more than 100 MB in size, see this discussion for some background. Hence, we had now for some limited time resolutions which allowed, for example, to read the Chinese characters in the artworks which is now simply impossible at the current thumbnail resolutions. But the high resolution images we had are still far away from the maximal resolution of high-end drum scanners (as, for example, the Heidelberg Chromagraph 3400) which deliver a real (not just nominal) resolution of 12,000 dpi. What we had was still below 1,000 dpi. --AFBorchert (talk) 16:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The source link of File:Sparvagnspalatset.jpg now says that "high resolution" images have been taken down, and as the Swedish museum explains here that is because they were uploaded to commons. The action by the Foundation is arbitrary and it sets a strange precedent. There are also private people that scan old books; I have uploaded some from here. Will the Foundation delete my uploads as a courtesy when the person who is hosting this material at his own expense would request that? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Brooklyn Museum does already participate in Flickr Commons, so they are providing an immense amount of stuff. Given the very specific circumstances... I can understand, although if they were user-taken photos the situation would probably be different. There is no copyright violation though, and it is somewhat unsettling as to what extent the Foundation will accede to requests from museums, but I can understand this one. PD-Art is a copyright position only, this is unrelated. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey let's get a few things straight:

  1. This was not an office action. The office might or might not have acted if no-one from commons was willing to do it, but office reps asked if we could do this within the community instead. With that in mind, please don't let this get bogged down into a discussion of what the WMF does or does not do: I deleted the images, and I do not take orders from the foundation.
  2. Melesse did not break (or even bend) any laws by downloading these images from the B'klyn Museum's site. This is not a copyright issue, at all. He/she acted as a good commoner/-ist/etc. and found an amazing find here, it just so happens that the museum goofed a bit in how they set up their website. The point is that they didn't intend to make those available in the way that they did, and when dealing with museums I don't think we should take the "finders keepers, losers weepers" approach.
  3. This is a very rare case, and completely unlike some of the examples given above. The museum (presumably) paid some money to get these very high quality images made, and (presumably) wants to re-coup that cost by selling prints (small prints, I would guess). They goofed up a bit on how they displayed their thumbnails. They asked (nicely) if we could not take advantage of their error.

I completely understand the legal/wiki-policy view on this, but this is actually more of an ethical choice. We as a community don't have a "governing body" that sets the rules and is answerable to complaints, which makes us a rather confusing organization to deal with for institutions that do have that kind of structure. So we as a community as a need to act in an ethical manner if we're to be trusted. We have nothing to offer but good faith and hard work, and we need to maintain an image as a good faith community at all costs. Even at the cost of a few images. --SB_Johnny talk 17:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is by no means an exceptional case. Many institutions do object to their digitization work being uploaded here, for example the National Portrait Gallery in London. Also German, French and Italian museums have complained. As I mentioned above, a Stockholm museum withdrew all its digitized images from the internet because some were uploaded to Commons. Will SB_Johnny now replace File:Sparvagnspalatset.jpg with this thumbnail? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, even if this weren't an organization, I'd like to think we would grant such a request. "per user request" is used often enough when someone accidentally uploads the wrong image (or the wrong quality, or whatever). So, regardless any copyright issues, we actually do give copyright holders the benefit of the doubt in such situations. That it was a third party and not the museum itself who uploaded the images seems irrelevant to me. In the interests of encouraging either an individual user or a large organization like a museum, we should tend to cooperate where possible. Here, it is certainly possible, since we either have or can fairly easily get replacements of good quality. In the best of all possible worlds, they would be giving us the highest-quality version possible - however in this case they don't want to. Free content isn't about grabbing everything we can get our grubby paws on and damn the consequences - it's about voluntary cooperation towards shared goals. If they (whether we're talking about an individual user or this museum) don't want to cooperate in that way, it is not our place to force them to do so. Instead we should view this as an opportunity to extend an invitation to increase participation, and build a relationship which will benefit the free content community.  — Mike.lifeguard 22:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, why did your grubby paws close Commons:Deletion requests/File:Goodricke John.jpg with keep? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was no mistake involved, only copyfraud. Nobody here is asserting that the images are copyright violations, only that they were not intended to be made public.  — Mike.lifeguard 02:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"your grubby paws" ??? Pieter, you need to tone down the rhetoric here, you're verging on rather unpleasant behaviour. ++Lar: t/c 14:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No reason to preach the gospel here. Keeping the Royal Astronomical Society's painting was a decision with which I did not disagree. If you had been reading you would have noticed that I was quoting Mike's own words, which probably express how the RAS feels about commons. And according to Commons:Reuse of PD-Art photographs#UK, the RAS has the law in its side. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Lar, he was just citing (we can get our grubby paws on and damn the consequences) Mike. --Túrelio (talk) 10:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this deleting was a clear break of all relevant commons policies.

  • To avoid intransparency all Office Actions have to be declared as such.
  • There is no place for "political deletions" without discussions here.
  • All deletions have to be made in a transparent way.
  • There is no legitimation to cancel the principle The Public Domain has to be remain the Public Domain (and this means: in each image resolution) because of good relationship to a single museum.
Sounds like a good way to make enemies, and make the "Stockholm museum approach" more attractive than the Brooklyn Museum's approach. Public domain isn't a license, it's the lack thereof. Just because something is PD doesn't mean the person who holds the work is under any obligation to share images of it, and doesn't give you the right to invite yourself into their attic and make copies. Museums are not our enemies, unless we make enemies out of them. --SB_Johnny talk 16:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Historiograf: If we implemented your suggested approach, why exactly would a museum want to cooperate with us? I'm not seeing the good neighborliness and mellowness that is a hallmark of the Commons I enjoy contributing to in your approach. Instead, it comes off as rather belligerent. Is that what you intend? ++Lar: t/c 14:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These images are not in the attic, they have always been in print. The Brooklyn museum itself is using their PD status, they are not paying any royalties to the aithor's heirs. Would it be a belligerent thing to do to upload scans from the exhibition catalogue? Would the neighbourliness between the Brooklyn musuem and the Foundation result in another office action? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's exactly what we should do: Get the highest-quality version possible which is publicly available. BTW, in case you didn't notice, the Foundation took no action here.  — Mike.lifeguard 11:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am still not very statisfied with all this. A lot of museums don't want their PD materials published on Commons. What will you do when a museum will request deletion of images citing this case as a precedent? Yann (talk) 17:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We will refuse. The only "precedent" is that we try to encourage good relations by not taking advantage of the innocent mistakes of others. In your example there is no mistake. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If some admin would be respectful of that precedent and delete File:Burning_Man_228_(241613953)_crop.jpg, File:Burning_Man_228_(241613953).jpg and File:Burning_Man_234_(241614377).jpg. As discussed, e.g. here.
Just today, User:Dcoetzee deleted lots of files, because the Foundation had received legal mail from the National Portrait Gallery. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, bad. At least he could wait for someone to save the images before deleting. :'( Yann (talk) 17:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The innocent mistake that museums in some European countries make is that they rely on the protection by law. A few days ago, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Midvinterblot.jpg was closed with the rationale that "Commons' policy does not care about the neighbouring right status in Sweden". Well, that would open up for uploading almost all Swedish photography to commons, because most photography in Sweden is protected by the same law paragraphs that protect this photo. I am more and more amazed by the different standards here. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, that closing rationale was IMHO wrong and overbroad. The correct rationale would've been the one at Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag#The position of the WMF. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are confusing what we CAN do, legally (which is what that post speaks to, and what our policy speaks to) and what we SHOULD do, to be good citizens in overall society. As the next post by Shelleyb7 outlines, the museum wants to work with us and is asking this as a favour. We should be nice people and work with an organization that has done us a lot of favours in the past. It's not going to kill us, and getting uniform 1200px images for everything will be a benefit over what we have now. ++Lar: t/c 14:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello everyone, I work at the Brooklyn Museum and wanted to pop my head into the discussion to answer any questions that you may have. I was the main organizer behind Wikipedia Loves Art - an event that brought together 15 cultural institutions and their communities to generate 6,000 photographs for the Wiki; a project we devoted more than 200 staff hours to and the model has now been copied for the Wikis Love Art project in the Netherlands. As an open access advocate who represents a cultural institution, I see and respect both sides of the issue. As mentioned here, this is a bit of an unusual situation. We contacted the WMF after discovering that high-resolution copies of the "100 Views" were uploaded as a result of a programmer error on our part. Understanding that the images are in the public domain, we hoped the Wiki community would take into account the situation at hand and our past contributions to projects like Wikipedia Loves Art and work toward a compromise -- in part because the Edo images represent a substantial amount of earned income that the our struggling institution cannot afford to lose in the current economic climate. Specifically, we went to WMF to see if the higher-resolution files could be replaced with 1200-wide (on the long side) files -- which are three times the size of the files currently on the wiki and of much better quality. While I acknowledge that reducing the resolution is a substantial compromise on the part of the Wiki community and its users, we believe that the 1200-wide images will fulfill the educational mission of Wikipedia -- the prints will be able to be seen clearly and in detail, but not substantially impact the institution's revenue. It should be noted that we are currently working with the editors to find additional ways to make valuable contributions - as a start, we are looking to automate cross-populating the files we are currently uploading to the Flickr Commons. The museum takes its role as a good citizen very seriously, and hope you will agree that compromises like this help all of us and allow for future collaborations. Shelleyb7 (talk) 13:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your message. I appreciate that someone from the Brooklyn Museum comes on the wiki to explain the situation. I also thank the Brooklyn Museum for the files it provides to our project. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone wants to help replace the fuzzy old ones with the new ones, please chip in: the files are at http://drop.io/hiroshige_edo (in a zip file). It should probably be done by hand as re-uploads of the ones we have rather than making duplicates. --SB_Johnny talk 15:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded a bunch, upward from number 70 in the zipped collection. Resolution is much better, but the colours are less fresh. How do the colours compare to the images that Melissa uploaded? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, they are the exact same files as were there prior, just sized down - the files in the zip and not overly compressed jpgs, so they should be exactly the same just smaller. Colors will vary depending on which one you are looking at and condition of the print. Shelleyb7 (talk) 18:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In view of the recent case with the NPG uploads of User:Dcoetzee, it gets even more strange that these images were deleted. The NPG never had their high-resolution photographs as a single image on their server - Coetzee stitched them together from zoomed-in screen views, thus circumventing a rudimentary protection against copying of work protected under English law. In contrast, Melesse just copied PD files that were there in one piece. Coetzee's admin bit was taken away by high-ranking officials, so that he is now unable to comply with the legal demands of the NPG. As a consequence, of course, no other admin will delete these files either. The Brooklyn museum offered low-res files, but so does the NPG - why is not that enough when such an offer comes from London? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I understand, the NPG didn't offer the low-resolution images under a free license. That's why they were not accepted. Yann (talk) 15:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if that's correct or not, but I do see some other differences between these cases:
  1. The NPG deliberately made, and continues to make, the high-resolution versions of their images available on their web site. While they may have intended them to be viewed only via their Zoomify interface, the fact remains that the availability of the NPG images on the web isn't, and never was, accidental, as it was in the Brooklyn Museum's case.
  2. The Brooklyn Museum, upon finding their images on Commons, acknowledged that we were legally allowed to redistribute them but asked nicely for us not to. The NPG started with a legal threat, and asserted copyright in their reproductions.
I suspect it's the latter reason that makes the most difference. Indeed, I would not be surprised if, in order to show good faith, the WMF were to take the full-resolution versions of the NPG images temporarily down during the legal proceedings. I would be quite disappointed, though, if they were to do so permanently without either a legal ruling or a retraction of their copyright claim by the NPG, as to do so would allow the NPG to continue to assert copyright on these public domain images. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I di not understand why "asking nicely" makes such a difference. And is there such a difference? Have you seen the correspondence from Brooklyn museum? Anyway, the NPG letter is quite nice. It explains the NPG's position, and it offers to drop all claims when DCoetzee complies. Compare that to the Belgian copyright collection letter when someone puts an image of the Atomium on a web page. Or the Danish newspaper that had to pay a large sum for its image of the Little Mermaid. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I support undeletion of these images. As these images were hosted in the United States, Bridgeman v. Corel has full force, and so there is no legal concern. I support collaboration with museums, but never at the expense of image quality or resolution, factors which limit the scope of reuse. Dcoetzee (talk) 18:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion ?[edit]

This request has been open for long now and I think that everyone has had a chance to comment.

As I see it we could keep the images per {{PD-art}}. The arguments to delete is keep to good relations with museum and "WMF might not like it (if we undeleted)". In my eyes we could say the same thing with every single image tagged with {{PD-art}}. Why are these images different? I have seen no proof that WMF was involved in the decision to delete the images or has said "no please don't" to the undeletion request. If they wanted that they could simply make a small edit on this undeletion request.

The best argument I have seen is the one made by Shelleyb7 from the museum where she said:

"... high-resolution copies of the "100 Views" were uploaded as a result of a programmer error on our part. Understanding that the images are in the public domain, we hoped the Wiki community would take into account the situation at hand and our past contributions to projects like Wikipedia Loves Art and work toward a compromise -- in part because the Edo images represent a substantial amount of earned income that the our struggling institution cannot afford to lose in the current economic climate..."

As we all know mistakes happen. If we make one ourself we can only hope we are allowed to correct them.

Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag#The_position_of_the_WMF states:

"If museums and galleries not only claim copyright on reproductions, but also control the access to the ability to reproduce pictures (by prohibiting photos, etc.), important historical works that are legally in the public domain can be made inaccessible to the public except through gatekeepers."

We got some replacement so we can't say images are "made inaccessible to the public except through gatekeepers". Therefore I suggest that we close this one as "not done". --MGA73 (talk) 23:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I weighed in a long time ago, but in general I agree -- this is not a PD-Art issue to me at all (which is more about photos taken by other people, or copies made from normal published sources). One the other tenets of "free software" (as the FSF defines it) is the ability to do whatever you want internally; using GPL software internally at a company does not obligate them to publish modifications in any way; it is only when they publish software containing GPLed code that they need to also publish the source code to any modifications or derivative works. In my mind, this is something the museum was doing internally, and just made a mistake -- they should be able to take it back. Part of "publishing" to me is doing it intentionally, and I don't think we should take advantage of accidents like this. Museums need to make money too, and while some museums go overboard in their efforts (resulting in things like the PD-Art policy to push back) there need to be legitimate ways for them to stay in business. It was also nice that the museum gave us medium-resolution replacements, though that wouldn't affect my opinion here. Short answer, I also think they should stay deleted (I may quibble with an admin deleting them out of hand without discussion and outside any process, but if there was a time-sensitive issue it may have been best to delete first then have the discussion here, as was done.) This was a rather weird situation and I doubt it will come up all that often. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Per arguments above this is not done (short version: Was released by a mistake and we have replacements). --MGA73 (talk) 18:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Thule-gesellschaft emblem.jpg[edit]

  • Deleted for copyvio
  • Published in 1919 or sooner.
  • No known author since more than 70 years

Should be undeleted and tagged {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}. --Dereckson (talk) 17:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment If this is the same as de:Datei:Thule-Gesellschaft_Emblem.jpg, it is signed "G." My guess is that this (together with the drawing style) would make authorship traceable. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well seen the G. But at left, isn't strange? Couldn't be for Gesellschaft? No I think this visibility corresponds more to a signature than an abbreviation. --Dereckson (talk) 19:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Per Pieter Kuiper. If more info is gathered feel free to try again. --MGA73 (talk) 18:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Commons:Deletion requests/Superseded[edit]

This is not a request to revive the obsolete process or any files that were deleted through it. Rather it is about the daily log pages, which run from Commons:Deletion requests/Superseded/2006/09/23 to Commons:Deletion requests/Superseded/2007/05/06. For some reason, when the process was live the pages were deleted when the list was "finished" as opposed to being kept.

This means that several hundred files were deleted, without any record of discussion surviving, and few of which would not be deleted today. That is not a case for restoring the files in itself, but if any need restoring such as for GFDL compliance issues, having the logs accessible will let us identify these more easily. In any case, logs of past actions should be accessible to all users not just admins.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they did remove the entries as they did them so they were blank pages before deleting them. I can't see people going through tons of useless history for any reason. The GFDL compliance issues are for the most part solved because of the CC-BY-SA addition (one of the major reasons for the migration), but restoring won't make it much easier to get this info anyway. I don't quite seeing the reason. There's seems to be a trend recently for people go dig around in our trash looking for stuff to restore rather than going looking for new stuff to upload. This would just make that worse, I think. I'm not totally against, I just fail to see the benefit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocket000 (talk • contribs) 09:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think it is not relevant if the stuff is old or new. It is about how useful it is. As for the DR's a bot can restore the pages if but someone has to check or recreate the history manually. Do we need the history and will someone do the work? --MGA73 (talk) 07:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done No further arguments given to justify the amount of work required to do this. No one said "I will do it" so this will probably never be used. --MGA73 (talk) 18:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Yahoo widgets[edit]

File:Yahoo!_Widgets_-_Yahoo!_Weather.png
File:Yahoo!_Widgets_-_Yahoo!_Widget_Gallery.png
File:Yahoo!_Widgets_-_Yahoo!_Stock_Ticker.png
Released under bsd license see en:Yahoo widgets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IngerAlHaosului (talk • contribs) 05:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The code is free, but I don't think the graphics are (see [3]). –Tryphon☂ 05:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Tryphon☂. --MGA73 (talk) 20:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Abigor and mass deletions![edit]

User:Abigor has yesterday morning deleted 572 photos uploded by me!!!

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Images_of_User:Quahadi

it seems that he did not watch at all what was he deleteing.Among them there were entire Categories: Gabela,Ljubinje landcapes cementery Korčula cementery ,[4]... It is not possible that ALL of them were useless !!!

Please could somebody fix this? It seems that he took mission to delete all my images!

--Anto (talk) 07:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those were probably even less educationally useful than the photos in Category:Badija. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case you two obviously have some divine criteria which nobody understands .

otherwise he would not deleted without looking File:Demografija-grad zagreb.jpg- a chart about Zagreb demography

Anto (talk) 07:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These photos of your are certainly 100% educative! LOL

[5][6]--Anto (talk) 13:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's completely irrelevant. –Tryphon☂ 13:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well. I think that deletion of entire categories is a bit drastic. If some wiki wants an article about a place it is good to have some images. Of course there is a difference between 20 and 200 images of the same landscape or town. I have not checked all of the images - has anyone of you? If you have checked all of them and say they are not usefull I trust you. --MGA73 (talk) 16:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note about the undeletion request, I really like it when people say that there is a discussion on COM:AN/V and here instead of letting me find it own my own.
I deleted those files after a DR, the DR was closed with four voices to delete because all of his material is very blurry and low quality, and normally I do not care about low quality but when files are so blurry that parts aren't vissible it a complete different story.
I would like to say also that I'm not the only admin deleting stuff, a other admin deleted some files also, and yeah I deleted the category also because there is no need to keep empty cats, but feel free to undelete them when somebody thinks they can be used, but there was a clear consensus for delete. Huib talk 17:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is probably no way to see a gallery of deleted images, right? I can see the uploader's point that if a category has 200 images, surely at least a few could be chosen to survive. Better a few low-quality pictures of a thing than zero. It would be nice if some breakdown of the pictures could be done, but that's very difficult post-deletion. Wknight94 talk 17:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My problem, MGA73, is that it's not our job to filter through the contents of someone else's camera. I looked through the 70 images listed for deletion, and listed 8 that I thought could be saved. They're not only bad images, they don't have good descriptions, and even among the 8 I listed only one or two weren't marginal. After having done that, I can see why an administrator might not want to waste the time. If Anto learned to have a little more discretion on his uploads, I suspect that he could reupload the better of the deleted images in the future and no one would notice. Unfortunately, I find it more likely that Anto will quit or will continue uploading images completely worthless for Commons until there's a more extreme response.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the contents of Category:Badija, referred to above as a comparison, don't look to me to be particularly useless. Not that they are the greatest or most important images on Commons, but they seem to give a good sense of a place. Nature photographs of forested regions are notoriously hard to take, so it makes sense to have a lot of these to give a sense of a place; any one photo just leaves you going "Uh-huh. Temperate forest." - Jmabel ! talk 20:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely agree. But if you look at some of the deleted files, if you can, you'll find a lot of them were blurry, often completely, and others looked like they were taken through a dirty window. And Category:Badija demonstrates part of the problem, where pictures of fairly ordinary things are uploaded and the description gives us no information, no context to put them in. Category:Badija indicates why it will be a loss to Commons to lose Anto; they don't illustrate why we got to this point, though.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I just looked at the category page; I didn't click through to see how these were described. And, of course, I have no way to look at the deleted images, not being an administrator. - 17:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I just took a look at the last few uploads and I'm worried. I would have kept all these:

  1. File:Groblje Korčula05531.JPG
  2. File:Groblje Korčula05530.JPG
  3. File:Groblje Korčula05529.JPG
  4. File:Groblje Korčula05528.JPG
  5. File:Groblje Korčula05527.JPG
  6. File:Groblje Korčula05526.JPG
  7. File:Groblje Korčula05525.JPG
  8. File:Groblje Korčula05524.JPG
  9. File:Groblje Korčula05523.JPG
  10. File:Groblje Korčula05522.JPG
  11. File:Groblje Korčula05521.JPG
  12. File:Groblje Korčula05520.JPG
  13. File:Groblje Korčula05519.JPG
  14. File:Groblje Korčula05518.JPG
  15. File:Groblje Korčula05517.JPG
  16. File:Crkva Gospe od Karmena05697.JPG
  17. File:Crkva Gospe od Karmena05692.JPG
  18. File:Crkva Gospe od Karmena05691.JPG
  19. File:Crkva Gospe od Karmena05690.JPG
  20. File:Crkva Gospe od Karmena05689.JPG
  21. File:Crkva Gospe od Karmena05685.JPG
  22. File:Crkva Gospe od Karmena05684.JPG

...and only deleted these (for painful blurriness):

  1. File:Groblje Korčula05532.JPG
  2. File:Groblje Korčula05516.JPG
  3. File:Crkva Gospe od Karmena05694.JPG
  4. File:Crkva Gospe od Karmena05693.JPG

(...and deleted these collage files - not terrible but not very useful):

  1. File:Panorama Ljubuški-kolaž.jpg
  2. File:Tvrđava Herceg-Stipana Kosače-kolaž.jpg
  3. File:Bobanova draga-kolaž11.jpg

I hope the rest are worse than these. Otherwise, we better restore and start over. Wknight94 talk 12:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Wknight, I do not agree with the last part, your saying undelete all and start all over... There was a deletion request that had a consunsus to close as delete, why undelete all and start a new deletion request I see that as a waste of time and resources. Huib talk 14:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If someone is willing to do it, why not. But personally, I agree with Prosfilaes: it's not our job to go through hundreds of useless pictures just to see if a few might be (I wouldn't say useful) less useless as the rest of them. If Quahadi/Anto considers some of his images are undeniably valuable to Commons, he can do a selection himself and re-upload these ones. But that's his job, not ours. –Tryphon☂ 14:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Huib, I can go through them all manually, but it would be a lot easier if we could make a gallery of them.
@Tryphon, I might agree if only 5-10% of the images were useful, but my list above shows over 75%. If no one else is willing, then I will do it myself. The whole event seems a bit odd though, unless the rest of the images I haven't seen are a lot worse than the ones above. It makes me worry about the quality of my own images - I'm not exactly a professional photographer myself. (Although I'm hoping to get/buy a nicer camera this Christmas...) Wknight94 talk 14:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is the combination of quantity and quality. Quahadi/Anto seems to upload without any selectivity, also stuff like this. Commons is not your personal photo storage server. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't really matter but I have to ask ---- how did that one not get deleted, but so many others did? Wknight94 talk 21:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to say but if we have 572 files that are deleted, and you make a list with 30 files it isn't over 75% wrong I guess you do to math completly wrong.
But again are there reasons why to undelete them all? Because you will overrule a community consensus in the deletion request and I still don't see any good reason to undelete them all, the only reason given is that he doesn't like all the files deleted, if you want to undelete them all you should come with something better because the reasons you give are incorrect and it will be just overrulling me without a valid reason. Huib talk 15:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, I will look at them all in their deleted state and pick by myself. And I haven't looked at all 572 yet, just the 30 files above. But if 75% of the overall 572 turn out to be like the ones above, then a big mistake has been made. As for community consensus, I highly doubt anyone took the time to look at all 572 of those - or at least no one in the discussion said they looked at all 572. I wonder how many people even got through the 80 or so links on the discussion page. Wknight94 talk 15:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, you can see the ones I marked as keep above. Do you really disagree with my assessment? Wknight94 talk 15:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I disagree File:Groblje Korčula05532.JPG isn't useful at all or File:Panorama Ljubuški-kolaž.jpg totally useless. And again there is no consensus to undelete here, when you just start undeleting because you like so it will be acting against policy with your admin tools, a administrator can delete based on consensus thats what I did, and a administrator can undelete based on consensus and there is no consensus to undelete here at all. Huib talk 15:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? You picked two images that I had in my delete list as well. Do you disagree with any in my keep list? Wknight94 talk 15:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say you have a pretty weak consensus; you have the nominator and Pieter Kuiper for deletion, me for in most cases, and the uploader against. In same cases you had no consensus; the list of photos I listed to keep were 2 versus 2, but were deleted anyway. And neither I nor Pieter Kuiper looked at the entire set of images up for deletion; I merely constrained myself to the one's listed.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are really reaching to delete these and I'm not sure why. Plus, your threatening tone is unnecessary - I wasn't proposing that I was going to blindly undelete all these images. No reason to shout ADMIN ABUSE. Wknight94 talk 15:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Wknight94 here, it's not going against consensus to undelete a few images, out of the 572 that were deleted. Surely, no one reviewed them individually, and if someone is offering to do it, I see no reason to oppose. Ideally, you would make a list of what you're going to (or already have) restored, so it can be easily checked, but if the number of files stays small, I don't even think that it'd be necessary. –Tryphon☂ 15:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will take a look over the next few days (no time at this exact moment), and will make a complete list. I have not and will not restore anything myself - consider me an "involved admin". Wknight94 talk 16:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I admire your patience, thanks for doing this. And take your time, there's no rush. –Tryphon☂ 16:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I left a note on your talkpage, I'm sorry for my tone here, but I'm not feeling that great lately :( Huib talk 16:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No sorry needed. Try to feel better! And I'll try to be more clear with my words. Wknight94 talk 16:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Prosfilaes. Sorry for the late respone. If someone nominates images for deletion we should look at them. If we do not have the time or wants to then we should not comment/vote or delete the images. If noone wants to look at the images we should keep them. So I'm sure that someone has looked at the images (also Huib). My argument was that if we have 200 images we do not need "bad" images. But if we only have 5 images then bad images could be better than none.
As for the possible undeletion the best would only to undelete the best of the images. But if it is easyer to do by undeleting then a bot can undelete the images if we have a list of deleted images. --MGA73 (talk) 21:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to say couple things that Abigor has mentioned:

  • Veliki kategorizator has proposed to be deleted cca 70-80 images listed there [7] not my entire opus. Amd certainly not entire categories! So there was certainly no consesus for that
  • I have no camera with GPS geocoding. I have listed imaged as accurate as I could-by municipalities or more precise categories. I am not cquinted with all possible geography of these areas
  • Theory about usefulness of images is again totally POV. How in the world you know that nobody will find it useful?? I have seen some of Abigor's images and at first glance I can see no usefulness for them. (from my POV) but smbd else


  • I deleted those files after a DR, the DR was closed with four voices to delete because all of his material is very blurry and low quality, and normally I do not care about low quality but when files are so blurry that parts aren't vissible it a complete different story.

This is not true of course! There is no way that all images are blurry. Max 10% of them might be seen as "blurry"! Only if Abigor was watching just thumbnails. Otherwise , he would not deleted demography chartAnto (talk) 08:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Anto (talk) 08:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Work in progress. Closing this thread until we have a list of images to undelete. A new undeletion request can be opened then. –Tryphon☂ 09:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Chrysiridia Cigarette card.jpg[edit]

I would like the image "Image:Chrysiridia Cigarette card.jpg" undeleted, since the concerns in Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Chrysiridia Cigarette card.jpg have been addressed by myself a little more than one month ago. I believe the image now qualifies as {{template:anonymous-EU}}, since it is a work of corporate ownership, the date has been tracked down and a snail mail inquiry of the author to Imperial Tobacco and the UK Intellectual Property Office has been made. It is my understanding that after reasonable inquiry has been made and the author remains unknown, the work can be considered anonymous and undeleted. Cordially, Pro bug catcher (talk) 19:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If necessary I can provide a copy of the text sent on September 8 2009 to Imperial Tobacco and the UK Intellectual Property Office, and of the answer the UKIPO. Pro bug catcher (talk) 19:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, what did they reply?  Support undeletion, this file is PD. -Nard the Bard 13:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The UK IPO basically said they can't check the copyright status for me, that I have to do the searching myself, they give a few tips and a few warnings. They also say I should keep the paper traces of my inquiry (which I have done). I think it is almost a generic letter with a few lines adapted for my question. Should I scan the letter and upload it to imageshack (or something similar) so you and other users can read it for themselves? Pro bug catcher (talk) 18:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. A reasonable level of inquiry has been performed, and the author is still unknown. Hence {{Anonymous-EU}} applies. –Tryphon☂ 07:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Category redirects undeletion[edit]

Please undelete:

these were deleted by Foroa, despite the previous discussion (Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2009-11#Categories). Thanks. -- User:Docu at 18:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see the conclusion to the discussion you linked to? It says to just create the category redirection. No need to undelete since there is no category redirect in the deleted revisions. Wknight94 talk 18:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's funny. -- User:Docu at 18:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Funny in that you are once again at the wrong forum? I thought so too. Wknight94 talk 18:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well this time it looks like there is a category redirect. Please check [8] "# (diff) 07:05, 6 November 2009 . . Docu (Talk | contribs | block) (68 bytes) (redir)". --MGA73 (talk) 19:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then I guess we'll need to wait for Foroa to explain. But I imagine s/he will repeat the oft-repeated sentiment that we have inter-language redirects for an extremely small percentage of the categories here, and to start that trend would result in a huge category overload. If we're trying to address the issue of inter-language accessibility, other methods should be pursued besides ugly category redirects. Hopefully this was mentioned in the recent discussion (somewhere that I can't find at the moment) where we were asked how to improve the Commons end-user experience. Wknight94 talk 20:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See (Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2009-11#Categories). --Foroa (talk) 23:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And what does that mean? --MGA73 (talk) 15:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done I see no reason provided why the redirects was deleted. So I restored two of them. The third (or first) was "red" so it can be made "manually". Please add better reason if you want them deleted again. --MGA73 (talk) 23:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Psycho-Stempel.png[edit]

File:Psycho-Stempel.png was deleted today by Zirland. Reason: COM:SCOPE[1]. I have written a statement on the article discussion page that there are other fields of interests than illustrate the article namespace. I hereby request an undeletion because WP:SCOPE is not applicable.

File in use on Commons only ... but by custom the uploading of small numbers of images (eg of yourself) for use on a personal Commons user page is allowed.

— COM:SCOPE.
This is my first (personal) image and I spent 20 Minutes to create it. There are/were some links to it too (f.e. to graphics workshop). --Psycho-Stempel (talk) 11:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ↑ http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=File%3APsycho-Stempel.png&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=

✓ Done Sure you may have this on your userpage. If you add {{Userpageimage}} it should be safe. --MGA73 (talk) 00:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Boze pravde instrumental.ogg[edit]

I have initially uploaded this file from the website of the Parliament of Serbia. Zscout370 first replaced it (and why?) with a version by the US Navy Band, then deleted it as a duplicate[9]. Please restore the initial version. Nikola (talk) 07:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only guess is that Zscout370 thought it was a copyright or performer's rights violation. It should not have been deleted as a duplicate, if that was in fact the reasoning. The Serbian copyright law does, say, in addition to the regular item of laws, decrees, etc. being not copyrightable, that Official materials of state bodies and bodies performing public functions are also not copyrightable. I'm not sure how to define "official material", but this may actually fit, so it may not be a copyright violation. Performer's rights do include the right to prohibit distribution though, and those may apply even if copyright itself doesn't. There does seem to be some assumed, maybe temporary, transfer of those rights to the employer though, and works performed by an "ensemble" seem to have different rules. Not entirely sure on this one, but there does seem to be a decent case for undeletion. If re-deleted, it should most definitely go through a regular deletion discussion; it should not be speedyable. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done It is second time Zscout370 delete it as a dupe. They were not dupes and should not have been speedied. See Commons:Deletion policy please or read the text in the template. The reason they ended up as dupes is that Zscout370 uploaded another file on top of the original. If Zscout370 wants a file deleted then the correct way is to nominate it for deletion. --MGA73 (talk) 00:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Ellis_Jones.jpg[edit]

How can I undelete this? Issues raised on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ellis Jones.jpg have been resolved by sending free license copyright of WORK [Ellis_Jones.jpg] email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org Thanks. –Zaikovskis | Talk 22:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to do anything. If the permission is valid, the image will be restored by the OTRS team. It can take some time though, there's a small backlog. –Tryphon☂ 09:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done I found the ticket and it did not look hopeles so I restored File:Ellis Jones.jpg and added {{OTRS received}}. I'm a little tired right now so it is probably best to let a native English look at the permission :-) --MGA73 (talk) 23:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Podolská[edit]

were deleted by Zirland as "Dupe of Image:Podolská, od Sinkulovy, směr Vodárenská (02).jpg". I am sure that they aren't exact duplicates and don't meet the criteria of speedy deletion. --ŠJů (talk) 15:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Support undeletion. Definitely not exact duplicates and really shouldn't be deleted at all, let alone speedily. Wknight94 talk 16:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done They are not dupes and can't be speedied. See Commons:Deletion policy please or read the text in the template. --MGA73 (talk) 23:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gilad Shalit on Hamas poster.jpg[edit]

The file was voted to be kept, but somehow got deleted here. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose In the occupied territories the British Mandate law of 1920 still applies, which is basically the United Kingdom Copyright Act of 1911. There is no FOP for 2D in that law. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you could provide the references for all your claims? I mean it will be really strange if a poster made by hamas, which has been designated as a terrorist group by the European Union, Canada, the United States, Israel, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and Human Rights Watch will be protected under United Kingdom Copyright Act. --Mbz1 (talk) 21:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See the reference given in the deletion discussion by Sean.hoyland about what copyright law applies in the regions administered by the Palestinian Authority. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First-of-all Sean.hoyland voted to keep the image. Second of all they explained what has happened to them after reading the document:"Unfortunately I blacked out and banged my head on the desk shortly after starting reading it." I know, mr. Kuiper, that you do not like me, but I am sure you do not want me to "black out and bang my head on the desk" don't you? . Besides the work you refer to proves absolutely nothing. It is just a research. And as I mentioned earlier no copyright low could or should be applied to an organisation that is designated as a terrorist group by the country that established the low.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, Sean.hoyland did not vote to keep the image. The master's thesis is not that terrible. It is quite logical. British copyright was introduced in the Mandate, was affirmed to be valid on the West Bank, also after the merger with Transjordania (although a different law was in effect on the East Bank). Israeli occupation did not change the law. And the Palestinian Authority has not yet come around to modernize its copyright legislation. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Sean.hoyland only commented "It would be a real shame to lose this one" not voted. Once again the poster was created not by the Palestinian Authority. It was created by hamas which has been designated as a terrorist group by the European Union, Canada, the United States, Israel, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and Human Rights Watch. Therefore no copyright low of United Kingdom is applied to that poster. --Mbz1 (talk) 22:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per the link in that discussion, the active copyright law in the West Bank (and Gaza Strip, albeit through a different legal history) is the UK Copyright Act of 1911 modified by a 1924 British Mandate ordinance (to make it Palestinian-specific). It is not the current UK Copyright Act, and I'm not sure it listed things like exceptions for freedom of panorama. There is a copy of it on Wikisource. None of the entities which have controlled those areas since have made any changes to the copyright law, instead keeping previous laws intact. Palestine is obviously not a signatory to the Berne Convention, but usual Commons policy is to respect whatever copyright laws are there. I can't see the image since I'm not an admin, but the situation does seem to be muddled. Deletion requests aren't votes, either -- they are there to present arguments, and the closing admin has to decide which argument seems best. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The situation is not that muddled. Also in Israel, the same law was valid with minor modifications until the 2007 Copyright Act. Its form in 2005 is here. The FOP provision is in 2(iii), s:Page:The_copyright_act,_1911,_annotated.djvu/45. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done - until the copyright law under the Palestinian National Authority is investigated further, because the law now can be readed like that the file is free, or isn't free so we don't delete stuff when we are not sure. Huib talk 19:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:World Digital Library - Launch.png[edit]

The file File:World Digital Library - Launch.png was of uncertain copyright status. I sent an email to the copyright holder attempting to clarify. A month passed with no response, so the image was (rightly) deleted. This is documented at Commons:Deletion requests/File:World Digital Library - Launch.png.

Just recently, I finally received a response. The full email I received, including my original email, is as follows (I can forward this email to permissions@wikimedia.org if necessary):

email hidden due to length, click the triangle to show →
From: 	info@worlddigitallibrary.org
To: 	[email address redacted]
Subject: 	Library Question - Answer [Question #4441109]
Date: 	Thu, Jul 2, 2009 1:08 pm

 


Hello - Thank you for this message.  We apologize for the delay in responding.  
You may use a screenshot of the WDL home page.  Thanks for letting us know. 

Sincerely, 
The WDL Team
http://www.wdl.org

-----------------------

Question History:

Patron: To whom it may concern,

I am a volunteer editor for Wikipedia (wikipedia.org) and its parent 
organization, the Wikimedia Foundation (wikimedia.org).

In order to illustrate Wikipedia articles on the World Digital Library, we would 
like to use a screenshot of the WDL homepage (http://www.wdl.org/en/). However, 
we may only use images that are freely licensed or meet fair use criteria.

Since the WDL homepage is created by the Library of Congress, would such a 
screenshot be in the public domain as a work of the United States Federal 
Government (under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code)? 
If not, would it be possible for explicit permission to use such a screenshot 
for any purpose be granted?

I appreciate your time.

[signature with personal information redacted]

Librarian 1: Hello - Thank you for this message.  We apologize for the delay in 
responding.  You may use a screenshot of the WDL home page.  Thanks for letting 
us know. 

Sincerely, 
The WDL Team
http://www.wdl.org

If this is sufficient permission, I believe the image should be undeleted. The deleting admin is currently on vacation, otherwise I would have asked them personally. Hope listing it here is ok. -kotra (talk) 21:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is not sufficient. It's not clear which license they want to release it under. Multichill (talk) 22:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that might be the case. How do you recommend I proceed? Should I reply with an email like the following?
proposed response

Thank you for your response and permission to use a screenshot of the WDL home page. Unfortunately, for legal reasons, we require more specific permission. If the WDL homepage is already legally in the public domain, for example as a work of the Library of Congress, we will need direct confirmation of this and that will be sufficient.

If it is not in the public domain, we will need the copyright holder to explicitly release the home page (specifically, the version of it on April 22, 2009) under a free license. This would involve the copyright holder making the following declaration of consent:

---

I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the World Digital Library homepage (http://www.wdl.org/en/) dated April 22, 2009.

I agree to publish that work under the free license Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ ).

I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product, and to modify it according to their needs, as long as they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me.

I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the work may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

DATE, NAME OF THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER

---

I apologize for any inconvenience this produces, but it is necessary. If it informs your decision, consider that a screenshot of the home page may enhance visibility and promote popular understanding of the World Digital Library.

Thank you again, and feel free to ask me for clarification.

The declaration of consent is copied verbatim from the boilerplate one at Commons:Email templates. I'm a bit uncertain about this, though. Can the copyright holder retroactively declare consent for a past instance of a website? If the homepage wasn't freely licensed on April 22, can a screenshot made on that date become free by relicensing the homepage after the fact? -kotra (talk) 23:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I realize this may be a tricky legal question, but would somebody know the answer to it? I would like to send off the email, but not if it would be a waste of time. -kotra (talk) 22:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it's still entirely their work, then sure they can license it. Why would it matter when they created it? There's nothing retroactive here; the copyright has been there all along. Licensing it simply releases some of those rights from this point on. Rocket000 (talk) 03:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response! Due to your explanation, I realize I was looking at this incorrectly; of course works can be freely licensed at any time by the copyright holder, no matter how long ago they were created (and even if they were only published for a single day). I've sent off the above email to them now. Hopefully the response will be quicker than the last one! -kotra (talk) 20:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Received a response last week. Their entire response is as follows:

The home page is in the public domain. Thank you for checking.

I wish they were more precise and explicit, mentioning a screenshot of the home page on April 22, 2009, but I interpret this as a fairly unambiguous green light. I can forward the entire email conversation to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org if requested. -kotra (talk) 09:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes please do. --MGA73 (talk) 18:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Forwarded. -kotra (talk) 09:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - The image will be restored after the OTRS permission has arrived. Huib talk 18:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just some info. It has arrived as https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=3981458 it just needs to be checked. There is some backlog. --MGA73 (talk) 18:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Files by User:Udacha[edit]

Next reasons are indicated for a delete:

  • All files in Category:Elena Mikhailova awards uploaded by Udacha.
  • Hardly a single file may be reasonably used for educational purpose, thus these files are not within project scope. These files are mostly awards for local junior competitions, so they cannot be used as illustrations of notable events or whatever. And Commons is not a private file repository.
  • All the files are license as {{PD-RU-exempt}}. In fact some of these awards were issued by various non-governmental bodies. So even if they for some reason fall within the project scope, they still should be deleted as copyvio. They are marked with not PD-RU-exempt in the list.

In fact:

  • This work is not an object of copyright according to Part IV of Civil Code No. 230-FZ of the Russian Federation of December 18, 2006.
  • The authors of images are founded public authorities, therefore I call you to check up his reasons about violation of copyrights.
  • There is not logic: Educational establishments are produced by images which can not be used in educational aims.
  • If they are deleted, it would be very difficult to find a substitute.
  • All these images are used as confirmation of information in the article the rough copy of which write. I agree, as yet the article of esch is not ready for a transfer in basic space. The article of esch is in a rough copy, not finished writing, therefore early to judge about quality of both the article and person.
  • I ask administrators to warn User:Gruznov of impermissibility of the use of administrative plenary powers for pursuit on a sign «there is a deposit of participant, which is in bloke».

Thank you. —участница Udacha (talk) 08:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

User:Gruznov did not answer on my appeal: User talk:Gruznov#Commons:Deletion requests/Files by Udacha. —участница Udacha (talk) 08:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Relevant to this is Commons:Deletion requests/Files by Udacha. Yann (talk) 09:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Next "problem" is the license. It seems to me most of the debate has been scope so the matter of license was not taken to the end (could license be fixed?). If license could be fixed I support an undelete so non admins can also see images and decide if the images are relevant tho the article. --MGA73 (talk) 18:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - Many of them have a bad license, badly sourced or out of scope. My advice is to upload them one by one with a correct source, correct license because only the source archive isn't enough. And a correct license is the most important offcourse. Huib talk 18:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Sander-jan-klerk.jpg[edit]

This image was tagged as {{Copyvio}} by 86.91.202.127 (who also opened a Deletion requests/File:Sander-jan-klerk.jpg for the same reason). However, OTRS has confirmed that the permission we have for it is valid, so there is no copyright issue.
But as you can see, the DR has been closed with respect to personality rights issues; that's why I'm bringing this here instead of restoring the file myself. I think there is no problem regarding personality rights, because 1) it is a posed portrait (not embarrassing, sneaky or anything) and we have the same image in black and white, and 2) according to our policy, we sometimes delete images on the subject's request, but then the IP should identify himself as such (he never did), and only "where good reasons can be given".
Failing that, deleting the image is just satisfying someone's whim, and arbitrarily reducing the choice of our sister projects (note that the image was in use before it first got deleted on July 18). –Tryphon☂ 12:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care about this image, but this issue is very poorly handled. It is clear than Sander wants this image removed (for whatever reason, that's not the issue). Instead of fighting him, this is a good opportunity to ask him for a good picture (the quality of this one is quite poor), but we should be sure not to make him angry before, otherwise the discussion will be difficult. We should do our utmost to have good relationship with personalities, either famous or not, instead of sticking rigidly to our self-made policies. Yann (talk) 12:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment We do have a good image of him that he uploaded: File:Sander Jan Klerk en Nicolette van Dam.jpg. -- Deadstar (msg) 13:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done As Deadstar says we have a replacement now. I like happy users and we have the choice to be nice (Commons:Photographs of identifiable people#Removal at the request of the subject, photographer or uploader). But lets hope we get some more images. --MGA73 (talk) 19:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Ylmermaid.jpg[edit]

I can't see the reason why it was deleted. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Probably a reason to keep deleted: see the comment by Moonriddengirl at en:Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Wong Yee Leng. --AVRS (talk) 15:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of that but that doesn't mean this particular picture is useless or out of scope. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Though the article may not appear to be an article, as was stated by you, the piece published to WikiCommons is allowed to be created on Wikipedia, not requiring same to have ever been published anywhere, but, however provides information on author Gary beers, and where his current success stands for the most part. The article, again, created on WikiCommons was placed there for informative information for readers of all sorts. I have been through this with Mr. Daly of the Wiki Board, and I have asked him to steer away this type of editing from administrators who seem to plague up and coming stars of the 21st. Century with there so-called well-roundedness concerning WikiPedia regulations, but, somehow for that Wiki is for education and fun purposes to the many researchers and readers around the world. As the creator of the article, as one can see, it was posted several days ago. I have not been given due opportunity to post my sources, indexes, and the like to substantiate the entire contents of the article. Lately, it seem that when a contributor adds a piece to Wiki, in this case, WikiCommons, it is aggressively sought out and lint-picked upon---and, ultimately marked form deletion. Again, Wiki states that the article can be updated as facts and sources change pertaining to same. I ask that I be given the chance to update my contribution.

T.C. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garybeers66 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean. Commons has no influence on whatever en-wiki does. If they delete an article there is nothing we can do about it. If you do not agree then you should put your arguments on en-wiki. If you succede the image can be restored. I see no alternative use for this image if it's "just another girl". --MGA73 (talk) 20:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Just another girl" is not a good argument against the restoration. There's no neutral reason to decide to keep this one deleted and another girl picture undeleted. The diversity has to prevail. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 10:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There could be personality rights issues here - looks like a private place to me. I can't say I see any real reason to keep it. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...but can you see another reason to delete it other than the Wong Yee Leng affair? Would it have been deleted if it wasn't linked to that? Probably not... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 06:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note; personality rights are not the same as privacy rights. There are always personality rights issues on photos of recognizable people, but they are not a barrier to being kept :-) I can't see the photo so I can't comment on this one -- just noting what seemed to be a mistake. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - I don't see how this file fits the scope, please make a new request for undeletion with a link to a article where you want to use it (and where there is not a other image available). For now I don't see a reason for undeletion. Huib talk 19:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Orang-Utan Zoo.jpg[edit]

The reason listed in the deletion log is copyright violation. The deleting admin was asked about the file but did not respond. The file was from 777life.com, which is now just a spam landing page, and the Wayback Machine is down right now but I will see if it is archived there when it comes back up. As far as I can tell, the only reason this was deleted was because it had a deprecated {{PD}} license. Speedy deletion is not really appropriate in this case, and uploader was not notified. -Nard the Bard 20:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Found a related discussion [10] here, I don't know, but "without fees for any purpose" sounds like a free license to me. There's a related discussion with the list of similarly affected files here[11]. I think if there's a question about the license all the affected files should be undeleted and subjected to a mass DR. -Nard the Bard 20:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - Assuming that is the correct license and the correct translation, I think your quote is misleading. The full license is "You can freely use all the photos in our gallery without fees for any purpose. (For wider commercial use a separate permission should be requested from the author.)" Note the text in the parentheses, which seems to have a restriction on wide commercial use, which is inconsistent with and more restricting than CC-BY and GFDL, which allow for unlimited commercial use.--Blargh29 (talk) 06:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find one of the counter-arguments in the 2006 deletion request compelling, ie, the license is free but different licensing can be separately negotiated. Still, I object to the deletion of this file as a copyright violation when dozens more exist from this source and the *only* community discussion on it is a single deletion request from 2006 of another file. -Nard the Bard 22:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - You can freely use all the photos in our gallery without fees for any purpose. (For wider commercial use a separate permission should be requested from the author.) Original Finnish text "Voit vapaasti ja ilmaiseksi käyttää kaikkia galleriassamme olevia kuvia mihin tahansa tarkoitukseen. (Laajempaan kaupalliseen käyttöön kannattaa kuitenkin pyytää erikseen lupa kuvan tekijältä.) isn't free enough sorry. Huib talk 18:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:PVALogo.jpg[edit]

This is ineligible for copyright protection according to German law, compare File:Laufendes-Auge.jpg. Austrian standards of originality should be similar to those in Germany. Actually, this design was pactically {{PD-shape}}. (Non-admins, look here.) /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done - {{PD-shape}} - Huib talk 18:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Undelete File:Comoro islands airline logo for web.png in Commons.[edit]

I'm the Marcoms director of Comoro Islands Airline and would like the logo to appear alongside our article in Wikipedia as it does for all other airlines.

Please can the file be undeleted or should I start the process of uploading again?


Hi. If you are indeed who you say you are, then we need COM:OTRS permission, stating that you understand the terms under which you release the image (anyone can use it for any purpose, including commercial ones, without telling you). This should be done from a company email address, preferably one listed on your website. Perhaps you'd rather it just be used under fair use rules at en.wp? -mattbuck (Talk) 16:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - The image will be restored after the OTRS permission has arrived. Huib talk 18:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Getúlio Vargas e gen. Edgar Facó[edit]

This picture was deleted yesterday (I believe).

I would like to know the reason. And what should I do to revalidate it?

thank you!

--Betty VH (talk) 19:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see here, it has been deleted because there was no license. You have to find out which license applies to this image, and then apply the correct copyright tag. –Tryphon☂ 09:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I informed this user on my talkpage after she asked a question there.
My advice was also the re-upload it with a valid license, therefor I think is reqeust can be closed. Huib talk 10:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To bad the bot did not inform the uploader of the missing license. User can reupload or ask for undeletion of File:Getúlio Vargas e o Gen. Edgar Facó.jpg once a license has been found. I think we could let user decide :-) If no license is found tomorrow I agree we can close the request. --MGA73 (talk) 23:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

user will reupload when he found a good license Huib talk 18:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Aerolineas Argentinas A340-300 despegando del Prat.jpg[edit]

File was deleted as copyvio but I remember the uploaded file to be slightly different from the Flickr image (Please also check the image page history, I remember reverting an IP comment claiming copyvio but the claimed source was also slightly different (but not the Flickr link)). It had the same width and similar height but a slightly different angle and focus on the aircraft. From memory it had some more space between left side and aircraft and less on the right side. The castle was closer to the image border than on the Flickr page. --Denniss (talk) 23:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. I checked the two images again. The image on Commons and the one on Flickr look the same to me. If user can upload original image (larger version than 1024 x 683) including metadata or send it to OTRS. Then we can look at it again. --MGA73 (talk) 08:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Wendover-Will.jpg[edit]

Please restore the above. It was in use on en:Wendover Will. As you can read the artwork was created in 1951. Artworks published in the US (and we certainly accept public display as publication in other instances), before 1978 without a copyright notice are simply in the public domain. The deletion request was (IMO) closed too soon and wrongly: the photograph was deleted because there is no FOP in the US, but none is needed for photographs of artwork in the public domain. If the photo is finally deleted it should be reuploaded to the Wikipedia as Fair use. I have raised the issue with the deleting admin who suggested I raise it here. --Simonxag (talk) 00:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no copyright notice on it, then yes it is PD and the photo is fine. Is there some documentation that there is no visible copyright notice anywhere on it? The back side too? Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where was it displayed? Erecting a statue in public is publication. Putting an artwork in a museum is not. Details details details... -Nard the Bard 06:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A google image search should give an idea. It was (and still is) erected in public. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a 1951/1952 work, the copyright would have also needed renewing. Checking http://cocatalog.loc.gov/, it looks like Pat Denner recently copyrighted some table lamps, presumably based on Wendover Will and Vegas Vic, and Young Electric Sign Company registered a couple more recent signs. But there doesn't appear to be any renewal for the original Wendover / Stateline Casino sign (did keyword searches for "Wendover" and "renewal", "stateline" and "renewal", "young electric", "cowboy sign", and "denner pat"). --dave pape (talk) 00:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good point actually. The online records start from 1978; this was commissioned in 1952 so if published that year, the earliest the renewal could be would be 1979 and that should be searchable. That seems like a good reason to undelete to me -- very easy to disprove; just find the online renewal record (and re-nominate for DR if one is found). If not found, that is pretty good grounds to claim PD-US-not_renewed (for the statue, not the photo). Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone found a renewal? If not I will undelete. --MGA73 (talk) 14:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done No proof that there was a copyright notice on it or it was renewed. Please start new DR if such evidence is found. --MGA73 (talk) 18:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Missing 2 Denise Milani files[edit]

Hi, I'm missing at least 2 nice pics of Milani. They had the same source as in Denise Milani. Please restore. Furthermore I am missing one/some of the deleted en-articles [12]. I couldn't find a copy in deletionpedia. Where else I could find one of them? Regards 78.55.57.189 14:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for the pics, you'll have to give us something to go by. Names of the images or who uploaded them or where they used to appear - something. As for the en.wp article, you would need to bring that up at en.wp. Wknight94 talk 15:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ME, You said images from the same source as the image in Denise Milani - there are no other milani images in http://www.flickr.com/photos/kamui99/.
if you mean this image: was uploaded to en.wp - the uploader needed two uploads, the second upload he needed to remove the watermark from the image he "created entirely himself" ;) ... The image was uploaded by en:User talk:Nightdiscoman. Some "other" user - a blatant sockpuppet - uploaded another image first under a fair use claim and than as "own work". See version history of en:User talk:Tobetoday. That was maybe the second image you searched, that was deleted precautionary. --Martin H. (talk) 16:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, yes I have meant File:Densie Milani in pink.jpg. I have used it on a German work-in-progess-site (currently vandalized). But there was a third one, not as nice as these both. But I can't remember its file name. Regards 78.55.57.189 16:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Point of fact: the other Milani image deleted by Martin H. at the same time was File:DeniseMilaniBikini2005.jpg. As for the en.wp article, what you linked to is close to the deleted version, but surely you would want to use more current sources and content than 2007. Wknight94 talk 16:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, so the bikini pic is from the same dubious source? That's a pity. The en-Denise Milani name space is still locked for authors, or? So it would make no sense to create a new nickname on en? My famous nick is blocked by Jimbo himself - as far as I can see the only German he has ever blocked. But I could present a German article about lovely Denise. Perhaps an English author has good connections to de-admins and is able to translate it. Here is the (vandalized) German version of 2008: de:Benutzer:Cascari/Nicht vergessen!#Denise Milani Regards, ME 78.55.57.189 17:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Source seems to be copyrighted images (watermark cropped away). Only way to keep these it to send a permission to OTRS. Or maybe upload original files in high res with metadata and without watermark so we can trust that author really took the images. --MGA73 (talk) 18:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The Kingdom of Gold pdf[edit]

The Kingdom of Gold pdf Written 31 March 2002 Author Gee Jay Just uploaded as a replacemment of previou mistakenly deleted by wiki commons please upload this file Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gee Jay (talk • contribs) 13:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Must be this File:Kingdom Of Gold.pdf. --MGA73 (talk) 21:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like own work. But you should send a mail to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org where you confirm that Geejay Thamby and User:Gee Jay is the same person? --MGA73 (talk) 21:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose. Completely out of scope, and includes various images and maps which are certainly not own work. –Tryphon☂ 15:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - Please deal with the permission with OTRS first, after that we should look if it fits our scope. Huib talk 15:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

undelete File:Solmate_NetTop.jpg[edit]

please undelete Solmate_NetTop.jpg, this file is created by myself and belong to our company and it is in our website.(www.solmate.com) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mussen4me (talk • contribs) 11:17, 2009 November 23 (UTC)

The image comes from http://www.solmatepc.com/NetTopPC-GenericModel.html, and as I told you on your talk page, the copyright holder (probably solmate.com) needs to send an email to OTRS, giving permission to use the file under the free license of their choice. –Tryphon☂ 11:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done As Tryphon said just send a mail to OTRS and if it is ok it will be undeleted. --MGA73 (talk) 18:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rey-osterreith example.jpg[edit]

I have discussed this issue with Mike Godwin Wikipedia's lawyer and he states "Mike: i frankly don't think any of the patient drawings is creative enough to qualify as copyrighted. i also think that way about the original figure Sent at 22:56 on Wednesday" Some ROCF could be just a square with a circle inside of it. Just because someone might call it an ROCF one cannot claim copyright over it. Thus would it be possible to undelete this image?Jmh649 (talk) 19:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is deletion a joke? How can that be a copyvio? --MGA73 (talk) 00:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is the original? -mattbuck (Talk) 01:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The issues are the same as those surrounding the Rorschach test and Wikipedia controversies.[1] The psychological community trys very hard to keep information about there profession off of Wikipedia. They have claimed copyright falsely over a number of images. The original of the Rey-osterreith can be seen here [13] Jmh649 (talk) 13:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ↑ Has Wikipedia Created a Rorschach Cheat Sheet? Analyze That - NYTimes.com.
Here is another recent claim of copyright of the Rorschach [14] Jmh649 (talk) 23:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restored Copyrighted? You must be joking... Yann (talk) 22:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Help, my hours-old original picture was deleted for an infraction in 2007 and 2008???????[edit]

I had an image created today with my camera that was deleted due to a file dated 2008 and 2007! The deletion was for a photo I'd submitted labelled "File:047.jpg". Won't that happen to most pictures taken with my camera as it only assigns three digits then jpg????? Any help would be highly appreciated...thanks! Never mind, as I figured it out.....sorry for the false alarm!Eng446w4 (talk) 08:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah - problems solved :-) --MGA73 (talk) 22:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2009-11&oldid=113105598"