Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2010-01

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.

Restore File:Hawaiistateseal.png[edit]

This file was deleted suddenly without warning. It was tagged with Template:US state seal from usembassy.de which indicated it's PD status.

That template is controversial, see Commons:Deletion requests/Template:US state seal, Commons:Deletion requests/Template:US state seal (2nd nom), Commons:Deletion requests/Template:US state seal (2nd nomination), and Commons:Deletion_requests/U.S._State_seals. But it has not been deprecated. --Svgalbertian (talk) 15:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The template was controversial because its old name gave the wrong impression, and because people incorrectly assume that every version of a seal is copyrighted by the state. In fact, each different rendering of a seal is a separate graphical work, following normal copyright rules (though obviously there are other laws which protect against any misleading usage of such seals). The files tagged with that template were originally made by the government, and appeared on embassy websites, so they are PD-USGov. For many of them, other seals of unknown origin were uploaded on top of them later (I think presuming the poorly-named template indicated that *all* versions of seals are uncopyrightable, another incorrect assumption). So, it is possible a more recent upload should be deleted, but not the original. I can't see the images though so I can't tell. The PD-USGov version is on this page; if the original upload is that version then it should be undeleted. Otherwise, probably not, and if later uploads were made without documentation those should probably stay deleted. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The image that was deleted is from usa.usembassy.de. The reason I brought up a bit of the history, is if this deletion was valid, then Template:US state seal from usembassy.de should be deprecated. --Svgalbertian (talk) 16:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done, the original revision of the file came from http://usa.usembassy.de/hawaii.htm. –Tryphon☂ 12:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template talk:PD-ES-COA[edit]

Template talk:PD-ES-COA was deleted because it is an orphan talk page, since the template was deleted. However, it contains precious information about legal issues on official coat of arms in spain, written by a spanish lawyer that is unfortunately nowadays retired from wikipedia and competent admins. To sum up, this talk is extremely useful to settle discussions about coat of arms in es.wikipedia . Since it was deleted because it is an orphan talk, not because it violates any rule, I would like it to be restored, at least temporarly, so I can copy that info to somewhere else. You can also place this stuff on my subpage User:Chabacano/talk coa... I don't care where, but I want to have this info back :P. Please, note that I don't want the template to be restored, just the talk page.—Chabacano (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done User:Chabacano/Template_talk:PD-ES-COA Platonides (talk) 19:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted by Platonides (talk • contribs • blocks • protections • deletions • moves • rights • rights changes) — Dferg (disputatio) 11:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Bethune School-Building.jpg[edit]

Happy new year! It is now 00:27 GMT which means more works have entered the public domain! Let me begin the annual tradition of requesting the undeletion of newly PD works with this image, which was published in 1949, which means it is now {{PD-India}}. I don't remember which tag the image had on it when it was deleted, I think I accidentally marked it PD-Pakistan when it was uploaded, but later realized it was from India and requested its deletion. Thank you :) -Nard the Bard 00:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. --AFBorchert (talk) 00:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Undeletion of photos recuest User:Aitor_Agirregabiria[edit]

User:Aitor_Agirregabiria I would like to reupload both photos. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nueva_T1_de_Barcelona.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:T1_Prat_Aitor_Agirregabiria2.jpg

Explained here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#User:Aitor_Agirregabiria_and_User:Xocolata1

Thank you so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aitor Agirregabiria (talk • contribs) 17:47, 2010 January 2 (UTC)

Please select a free license on flickr; it will prove that you are the author and agree to release the image under a free license. Alternatively (if for some reason you don't want it to be free on flickr, even though anyone can get it from here and use it for any purpose) you can send an email to OTRS. The first method is much faster and preferred. Thanks. –Tryphon☂ 18:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done, both File:Nueva T1 de Barcelona.jpg and File:T1 Prat Aitor Agirregabiria2.jpg are now {{Cc-by-sa-2.0}} on flickr. –Tryphon☂ 01:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request of Undeletion[edit]

The following files were deleted contrary to a resolution reached here and contrary to commons policy relating to Israel. These images are clearly FOP in Israel according to Section 23 of the Israel Law:

File:HaMakhtesh_HaGadol_IMG_5985.jpg
File:Map of Nabatian Cities IMG 6078.jpg
File:City Walls of Mamshit IMG 6081.jpg

The following files are also free according to Section 22 of the Israeli Law (as the music is incidental to the ralley images and as it is not a concert):

File:Atzeret Dana MVI 5780.ogg
File:Atzeret Dana MVI 5781.ogg
File:Atzeret Ivri MVI 5778.ogg
File:Atzeret Korin MVI 5775.ogg

The deletion was done in bad faith. Deror avi (talk) 15:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again. Whatever happened to assuming good faith? Adambro (talk) 15:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can anybody thinks this section titled "Israelische coyright mafia" is in good faith? Deror avi (talk) 15:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Was that written by the user who deleted these images? Adambro (talk) 15:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, Adambro and Dror, it was not, although Pjotr did not repudiate the representation for what it was worth. Everyone, for the time being, let us focus on the merits of each of these images and not the admin who deleted them. The findings were that there was no overt evidence of admin abuse, but there was evidence of poor evaluation of either consensus or commons policy, so let's focus on fixing any mistakes first. -- Avi (talk) 16:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Back on topic[edit]

 Comment Can we please separate out the photos from the music? Discussing both topics at once just makes progress harder. This should be about the media not the people, but the only real connection between the two groups of images is who deleted them.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Media for restoration[edit]

original discussion here

On the subject of the ogg files, as I said at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Atzeret Dana MVI 5780.ogg, the music cannot be described as incidental. Incidental isn't the same as accidental, incidental would mean a trivial element of the work. Of the ogg files I listened to, the music was by far the most prominent element of the audio. Adambro (talk) 23:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Israeli Law states that an incidental inclusion of music is allowed (unlike an intentional one). for example - if I put a disk in my player, turn it on and then make a home video and upload it - it is a breach of the Law because it is intentional. If I walk in the street and make a home video, and a car passes by with music from it, or I pass a store which plays music - it is incidental and allowed. And in the above example - if music is played in a political rally, any vedio of the rally will include it. The video should be short of course (not a whole song) but it is incidental and not purposful (intentional), and allowed according to the Law. Deror avi (talk) 23:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The file names are quite revealing about the intention. Also the recording of artists singing rather than activists speaking. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Atzert - convention - political realy. And the name of the person on stage - in this case - three gay right activits who happen to be singers. Deror avi (talk) 23:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deror avi, the examples of a car passing by or passing a store playing music seems to be equating accidental and incidental. They aren't the same. I can't remember whether I watched/listened to all of the ogg files, I'll be sure to do so tomorrow, but certainly the one that I remember seeing had the music as the most prominent element of the audio. That most prominent element cannot be described as incidental inclusion. Just because someone didn't deliberately record the song, it doesn't mean that the part of the song included is incidental. Just as with an image, it doesn't matter whether you accidentally photographed a Coca Cola advert on a truck because it drove past in front of you camera or set out to do so, if that advert was the most prominent element of the resulting image then it couldn't be described as incidental inclusion. Adambro (talk) 00:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is incidental for two reasons. There is no argument that the whole rally can be videoed and uploaded - it is a free political raly in a public square. The facts that artist performed in it is of no intention of the photographer and therefore incidental. Unfotunatly my camera can not video a 2 hours rally, so I took sevral videos showing the people of the rally, from very far from the stage. Thus the fact that small sections of songs got in are incidental. The Law spesificaly states that a deliberate inclusion is not allowed. This is a good example of incidental inclusion which is allowed under the Law, otherwise it is impossible to video the rally. The Images itself is free without a doubt (no one here states otherwise), and the sound is OK according to the de-minimis clause of the Law. Deror avi (talk) 07:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(<-)I'm going to look at the Hebrew text sometime soon, but Adambro has a point, Deror. Can you point to anywhere where these terms are more clearly defined? -- Avi (talk) 16:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of Israeli Law regarding incidental inclusion of music[edit]

The Law states in Section 22:
"שימוש אגבי ביצירה בדרך של הכללתה ביצירת צילום, ביצירה קולנועית או בתקליט, וכן שימוש ביצירה שבה הוכללה היצירה כאמור, מותר; לעניין זה, הכללה במתכוון של יצירה מוסיקלית, לרבות המילים הנלוות אליה, או של תקליט שבו היא טבועה, ביצירה אחרת, לא תיחשב לשימוש אגבי."
Greenman in page 342 of his books states:
"מי שמסריט או מקליט מצעד ססגוני המלווה במוסיקה מכוון, מן הסתם, לקלוט את הצלילים הבוקרים מן המצעד, אך שימוש ראוי כי ייחש כשימוש אגבי, הואיל ואין לו שליטה ישירה או עקיפה על הופעת אותם צלילים המושמעים במצעד. על כן, יש לפרש את המילה "כוונה" כמתייחסת לשליטה ישירה או עקיפה על השמעת היצירה המוסיקלות או התקלייט המושמע או המוקלט ביצירה."
i.e. the intent is related to the control of having the music heard and when no control exists no intent exists.
Presenti states in p. 941 of her book from 2000:
"לדוגמא סצנה של סרט בו ישובים השחקנים בבית קפה שבו מושמעת יצירה מוסיקלית כמוסיקת רקע. אם הסצינה מבוימת מתחילתה ועד סופה, דהיינו אם גם מוסיקת הרקע מבוימת בוצעה הכללה מכוונת. אם בשטח הצילומים של הסצינה מושמעת מוסיקה שלא הוכנה על ידי במאי היצירה - זו תחשב כהכללה מקרית".
In the official brief to the law it is said:
"הסעיף המוצע נועד לאפשר שימוש ביצירות אגב צילום או הקלטה, פורמלית עלויה להיות הפרת זכות היוצרים במוסיקה הנשמעת ברקע בעת צילום אירוע ציבורי... אף שמעשים אלה מהווים "זוטי דברים" מוצע להבהיר כי אינם מהווים הפרת זכויות יוצרים."
i.e. an non intentional recording of music in a public event is not only de minims but not a breach. ( I don't have in my office her 2009 book)
Both Presanti and Greenman states that this section is based on Section 31 (3) of the UK Law of 1988, which states: "A musical work, words spoken or sung with music, or so much of a sound recording, broadcast or cable programme as includes a musical work or such words, shall not be regarded as incidentally included in another work if it is deliberately included" and their explenation comlply with its interpretation see here. Deror avi (talk) 17:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No need to rehash Commons:Deletion requests/File:Atzeret Dana MVI 5780.ogg. These are clear bootleg recordings. News reporting can claim {{Fair use}}, but it does not apply on commons. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not fair use. The fair use section of the Law is different. It is not an infringment. It a video of a political ralley is very similar to news photage. A bootleg recordings would need to include the whole song. Once it is a ralley, and only a segment of the song its incidental both according to the Israeli Law (as stated by all scholars) and also according to the UK Law. And again the video is undoutedly free. The music therein is de minimis. See also here: "The defence applies in the main to artistic works but does cover musical works where the inclusion of the music is unintended (i.e. in background of a news piece) and where the music has not been selected and placed as the background music to that particular piece." Deror avi (talk) 18:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given those quotes from Greenman and Presenti, there is simply nothing to discuss. This is not some nuance of translation or word-choice; they couldn't possibly be any clearer. Since Deror avi didn't select the music to be played at the rally, it wouldn't matter even if he had recorded entire songs in high fidelity; it would still be an incidental use because recording the music was not his purpose in filming the rally. Unless PK is going to claim that both Greenman and Presenti have no idea what they're talking about. -- Zsero (talk) 23:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I need a little bit more time to read up on this before I can comment so I'd ask that this request remains open a little longer. I also need to listen to the recordings in full which I've not had chance to do yet I don't recall. Adambro (talk) 00:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An unofficial translation translates section 22 as: "An incidental use of a work by way of including it in a photographic work, in a cinematographic work or in a sound recording, as well as the use of a such work in which the work was thus incidentally contained, is permitted; In this matter the deliberate inclusion of a musical work, including its accompanying lyrics, or of a sound recording embodying such musical work, in another work, shall not be deemed to be an incidental use."
Is that a reasonable translation? Adambro (talk) 12:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it sounds equivalent to the original. However, in this case the inclusion of a part of a song was not intended. It is a film of a rally in a central square in Tel Aviv. The song performed by Dana International was part of the rally. Its inclusion in the film does not seem intended in any way. Drork (talk) 12:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for that Drork. In which case I'd suggest the law doesn't really help us much here since it doesn't define what is incidental, only that deliberately including another musical work definitely isn't. However, having read some of the information you've provided it suggests my idea of "incidental" being a trivial element of the work in this situation is probably not correct. It is a shame the term isn't defined more clearly in the law. I can't confidently say that these ogg files are permitted, not least because I don't understand Hebrew, but nor am I as inclined to suggest these aren't permitted so I'm neutral on this now. Adambro (talk) 14:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my translation of the excerpts quoted above by Deror avi:

  • Greenman, p 342: One who films or records a colourful parade that is accompanied by music presumably intends to record the sounds that emanate from that parade, but this is a proper use because it will be perceived as an incidental use, since he has no direct or indirect control over the presentation of those sounds that the parade plays. Therefore one should interpret the word "intention" as relating to direct or indirect control over the playing of the musical work or recording that is played or that is recorded in the work.
  • Presenti, p 941: For instance a scene of a film in which the actors sit in a cafe where a musical work is heard as background music. If the scene is staged from beginning to end, i.e. if the background music is also staged, then an intentional inclusion has occurred. If at the scene's location a musical work is playing, that was not prepared by the person producing the work [i.e. the film], this is considered an incidental inclusion.
  • The official brief to the law: The proposed paragraph is intended to enable use of works in the course of filming or recording. Technically this would be a violation of the copyright of the music that is played in the background while filming a public event...although such cases constitute "de minimis", it is proposed to clarify that they do not constitute a breach of copyright.

I don't think that could be any clearer. Since Deror avi did not choose the music for the rally, and his purpose in filming was to record the rally as a whole, these files are permitted as incidental use no matter what proportion of the songs are included, and no matter how high the quality of the recording. -- Zsero (talk) 18:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The recordings have been restored per the quoted commentaries by Greenman and Presenti. Please note, however, that I reject the claim that the deletion happened in bad faith. This case is challenging and I would have most likely decided likewise for deletion given the state of the DR at the time of the judgement. The difference is that we have now, thanks to Zsero, translated quotes of the relevant commentary which was quite helpful. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

Norwegian painting[edit]

Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Jorunn (uploaders request) lead to deletion of 90% of all PD Norwegian art on Commons. Since the policy has been changed afterwards, and the reason for deletion is no longer valid, please undelete.--Yaroslav Blanter (talk) 01:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Support This one should be a no-brainer. The photos were deleted in January 2008. In July of that year the WMF made it clear that it has always rejected the theory underlying the deletion, and considers it "an assault on the very concept of a public domain". In August Commons policy was changed to make this explicit. Therefore every photo deleted under that theory should be undeleted without further debate, and should have been undeleted 16 months ago. If someone then has an objection to some specific photo, they can relist it for deletion. -- Zsero (talk) 20:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for two reasons: Firstly, the deletion was requested by the uploader. Even if we accept these images they can put the uploader in the source country into legal trouble. Secondly, I checked some of these images and found no source information. This is strictly required according to our policy, see COM:L.

Please note that all these images had been transfered to en-wp. Because of this, I suggest following procedure to restore them at Commons: Ask Jorunn for the original sources, transfer the images from en-wp back to Commons and add the source information. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Restore File:TCHshield.svg[edit]

Can we restore this image. The image it is based on was first published in Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Canada in 1959. Canadian crown copyright is 50 years from publication, so image can be licensed {{PD-Canada}}.

Extra reference: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:TCHshield.svg w:File_talk:Trans-Canada_Highway_shield.svg--Svgalbertian (talk) 16:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Support Nice catch. Calendar years changing do change a few old DRs ;-) Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restored by Julian as entering PD on 1/1/2010. -- Avi (talk) 05:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Divina_Misericordia_(Eugeniusz_Kazimirowski,_1934).jpg[edit]

I can't see the image, but according to the deletion request, one of the deleted paintings was by Polish artist Eugeniusz Kazimirowski (died 1939). As Poland has 70pma terms, it entered the public domain in the last few days. It is even public domain in the United States, as Poland had 50pma terms on the URAA date in 1996 and the U.S. copyright was thus not restored. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restored Good catch. -- Avi (talk) 05:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Alfons Mucha[edit]

According to Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2006/01#Everything_by_Alfons_Mucha, the Czech author died in 1939, thus his works just became public domain. I'm not entirely sure of what all the deleted images were, but an old version of the gallery shows most/all of them. The Czech Republic had terms of 50pma on the URAA date, so any works first published there would also be PD in the U.S. as they were not restored in 1996. It sounds like he also spent time in the U.S. (from 1906-1910 so any works published then are OK) and also for a time in France (where he made some stuff starting in 1895). Works first published in France also just became public domain there, but they may still have a valid copyright in the U.S. as the URAA did restore any of those published 1923 or later. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like there was a second deletion request later in 2006; the gallery looked like this at the time. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I already searched that Gallery as well as deletion requests, admins deletion logs related to deletion requests and user talk namespace and listed them in Talk:Alfons Mucha, regretably there is nothing more to restore, as User:David Levy said: deleted images have been retained since June 16 2006, older deletions are lost. If you find some individual images that can be restored please add them there. --Martin H. (talk) 08:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry, was not aware of the cutoff date or the earlier attempt at restoring. File:Alphonse Mucha Dancel lithographie.jpg looks like it was transferred to en-wiki, then re-deleted in August 2006 -- would that still exist? It was deleted for a strange reason; since it was published in 1906 it is PD in the US, but was deleted there anyways. It's possible that others were transferred to en-wiki; I'll look for a couple more -- but that one was originally a featured picture so it may be nice to restore it if possible.Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean w:en:File:Mucha, Alfons - Dance.jpg? -- Avi (talk) 16:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, under the same name -- en:File:Alphonse Mucha Dancel lithographie.jpg. It may be the same image though. But, it also may be nice to have the original page history and name, etc. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The deleted file is a smaller version of File:Alfons Mucha - 1898 - Dance.jpg. -- Avi (talk) 16:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. It still may be nice to have the original upload and page history, as it was a featured picture once and presumably in wide use, but it's not a big deal. And I was not able to find any of the other old images on en-wiki, other than one deleted even earlier after it was transferred to Commons. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The original file page of File:Alphonse Mucha Dancel lithographie.jpg was ''Dancel'' (1898) lithographie<br/>{{PD-Art}}<br/>[[Category:Lithographies]]<br/>en: (cur) 23:35, 22 July 2004 . . Wetman (248464 bytes) (Alphonse Muscha 1898 lithograph), linebreaks added by me, that has no value at all. I already checked other pages: no sources, no weblinks, no libraries or books, no galleries, no measures, no techniques, no additional information - nothing. --Martin H. (talk) 19:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That was still the page linked to, so it may be nice to have old links (and old versions of wiki articles) work again (including the old featured picture stuff on en-wiki). And if it was a different scan/crop of the original work, showing different areas or with the colors looking different, it may be nice to have as an alternative. Those are relatively minor though and probably aren't worth the effort. Since it looks as though no more old ones can be restored, this request can probably be closed -- thanks for looking at it ;-) Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Out of curiosity, was there a valid audio file at File:Cs-Alfons_Mucha.ogg? If so, it seems it was deleted just recently, and the reason seems odd... Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it seems corrupted a bit (first syllable is repeated). -- Avi (talk) 16:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't notice that and have restored it. BTW, on deleted Mucha images, also see Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#No image to restore. Lupo 16:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All available images have been restored, or at least the best image where there were multipleimages of the same object. -- Avi (talk) 05:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Les pido restauren la pagina borrada.[edit]

Les solicito restauren la página borrada, debido a que no pude comprobar a tiempo su alta puesto que recibí el correo de notiifcación a mi correo-spam de terra y no lo revisé a tiempo. Deseo que la fotografía que publiqué de Regina Orozco sea utilizada en el perfil de wikipedia. Gracias por su atención.

Atee. Francisco Millán B. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frkm755 (talk • contribs) — Dferg (disputatio) 14:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

¿Qué imágen desea usted restaurada? Aparentemente usted no tiene contribuciones borradas. ¿Sería tan amable de indicar el nombre de la imágen o de añadir un enlace a la misma y/o registro de borrados? Gracias, — Dferg (disputatio) 14:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Por otro lado, si usted se refiere a este mensaje, no es una notificación de borrado, sino una notificación de que el archivo no posee categorías. — Dferg (disputatio) 20:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - nothing to undelete. — Dferg (disputatio) 14:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Geocoding overlay[edit]

Yesterday (12 January), User:Juliancolton deleted File:State Line City Indiana map from 1877 atlas.png/overlay.kml, citing "file page without media". This was a Commons:Geocoding/Overlay file (associated with File:State Line City Indiana map from 1877 atlas.png) for use with Google Earth and should not have been deleted. Can it be restored, please? Thanks. Omnedon (talk) 13:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I restored it. You could have simply waited for my response before bringing it to this forum. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had no idea when you might respond. No insult was intended; I just wanted to get it restored. Thanks for putting it back. Omnedon (talk) 15:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Handled already. -- Avi (talk) 07:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2010-01&oldid=113105843"