Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2010-02

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

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

File:NORAD Tracks Santa - 3D - 2009.jpg and File:NORAD Tracks Santa - 2D - 2009.jpg[edit]

Undelete these files - File:NORAD Tracks Santa - 3D - 2009.jpg File:NORAD Tracks Santa - 2D - 2009.jpg

http://www.flickr.com/photos/searchengineland/3134145746/

Google Earth & Santa

Google Earth & Santa by search-engine-land. See 8 Santa Trackers For Christmas Eve 2008, From NORAD Santa To Twitter. Feel free to use this image. Just link to the photo page or the story. Would you like to comment?

Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).

http://www.flickr.com/photos/searchengineland/4210935439/

Official NORAD Sanda Tracker Map

Official NORAD Sanda Tracker Map by search-engine-land. See From NORAD Santa Tracker To Twitter: Santa Tracking For Christmas Eve 2009. Feel free to use this image. Just link to the photo page or the story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomsmith0002 (talk • contribs) 09:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

search-engine-land on Flickr is not the copyright holder of Google Earth's user interface design or the map content it uses, so it cannot issue a legitimate license to works based on those elements. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And that's it. Screenshots of Google Earth or Google Maps are not allowed on Commons. Maybe on the english wikipedia. --High Contrast (talk) 10:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's suspected that User:Tomsmith0002 created sockpuppet User:Johnjones0007 with the only purpose to reupload deleted images --Justass (talk) 11:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, unambiguous copyright violations. No reason to undelete these images. Blurpeace 06:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:CVBadalona.png[edit]

As I told to user Samucon, I am the designer of this file, and there's no reason to delete it. I've got no answer. Where is the Copyright violation? what was the reason to delete it? how can I prove that I am the author?

I ask you please undelete this file. --Albert Cunill (talk) 22:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone with email address @cvbadalona.org needs to send permission into permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (or permissions-commons-es@wikimedia.org in Spanish). Stifle (talk) 11:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For works previously published elsewhere, we generally can't assume that essentially-anonymous users here own the copyright -- there have been too many false claims, and even with genuine cases there have been misunderstandings of the scope of what was being licensed (it cannot be licensed for Wikipedia use only, for example). As mentioned above, a private email from the site hosting the picture, declaring the copyright status and making sure the owner is clear on what is being licensed, is often required. See Commons:OTRS for details. If you send such an email, the file will be undeleted when the OTRS ticket is processed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks guys, OTRS already sent from email address @cvbadalona.org on 28 January 2010.--Albert Cunill (talk) 07:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, an OTRS volunteer will undelete it when/if the permission email is validated. –Tryphon☂ 15:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

Undeletion[edit]

It's unfair that you delete the image named by thivahary.there are so many person's autobiography in this media.,but you say that it seems to be nonsense should have to be reconsulted&ascertained well.that would be better to you impartial mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.115.29.234 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the instructions. You failed to enter an appropriate subject ("Undeletion" is not a meaningful specific subject on a page that is generally all about undeletion), identify the file for which you are requesting undeletion (there is no user named User:Thivahary, and you haven't uploaded any files yourself since anonymous users can't upload files), state the reasons ("it's unfair" is not a reason; please make your case with reference to policies and guidelines), and sign your request. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, per LX. –Tryphon☂ 14:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Osternienburg, Thurau (Zabitz), Quellendorf[edit]

I don't see a reason for speedy deletion. There are still Wikipedia-Articles linking there. See as well User:Leit/Löschkandidaten ...Sicherlich Post 09:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The comment on the first one said it was an empty gallery. Should be able to be recreated if images can go in there. The second one, if Google translate is correct, was deleted because it was "identical to the category". I have to admit, that one is confusing to me -- I didn't think that was a reason to delete galleries. Additionally, if they were long-standing galleries, these may be linked from wikipedias, so *something* should be left there (do we allow redirects to the category?), or links fixed to point to the galleries. Did the gallery pages have interwiki links? That may be another reason to keep them.  Support undeletion of at least the second one. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the galery was not empty as an admin may check. The galleries had interwikis as far as i remember ...Sicherlich Post 15:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile the links on de.wikipedia are fixed, so this problem no more exists. The comment "identisch mit Kat" (identical to the category) was appropriate because the pages missed the essential elements constituting a gallery: the descriptions and a general structure (e.g. headlines like "Buildings", "History" etc.). It was a mere copy of the category with no additional value. Galleries make sense but only if they are wisely structured. The deleted galleries dont't fit this criterium. As regards the deleted gallery Osternienburg, there was only one image. In this case, the galery didnt't even contain the coat of arm of the municipality. I have added interwiki links to the one category where they still missed.--Leit (talk) 18:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I first wondered why a gallery was deleted with that reason, but yes, I agree with Leit, in this condition the "gallery" has no value over an redirect to the category. No image captions, no structure, a <gallery> tag and 6 images... Im sorry that I wasted my time to write this answer, in this two minutes I could have created a better gallery ;) --Martin H. (talk) 19:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
so you wasted your time instead to make a better one? Interesting ... i just created them again ...Sicherlich Post 20:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a matter of principle... I think it would be best to just keep such galleries. Let the community improve them -- that is the point of the project. There can be links from many wikipedias, or even places elsewhere on the web, which we can never fully determine. It is very, very poor form to break legitimate, existing links... Wikipedia *never* does that. At the very least, don't delete, but just change to a redirect to a better page or category. That can let other, normal editors revert and improve the original gallery if desired. It may have been a poor gallery, but to me deletion is an inappropriate response and I don't think there is any guideline which supports speedy deletion of them. It is far easier to use normal editing tools to redirect to the "better" category than to delete. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
there is no guidline supporting that, thats why it did not go the "offical" way but through User:Leit/Löschkandidaten ..Sicherlich Post 10:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. Well, not really since the galleries had already been recreated, but this request can be closed in any case. –Tryphon☂ 10:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

Undeletion[edit]

Previously, files were deleted (File:Макет_промышленного_объекта.jpg, File:Макет_офисного_здания.jpg, File:Макет_микрорайона.jpg, File:Макет_коттеджного_поселка.jpg, File:Макет_гостиницы.jpg, File:Макет_аэропорта.jpg). Later, I received permission to OTRS - 2010012910021241. Can they recover?--GlaDooo (talk) 15:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thats already written in Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#The_permission_for_files_listed_below.2C_were_send? No "forum shopping", it will not speed up the process. Looks like Stiffle is on it already. --Martin H. (talk) 16:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, will be handled through OTRS. –Tryphon☂ 10:31, 11 February 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.

Image:JWprofileartistready.jpg[edit]

Image:JWprofileartistready.jpg

Ik have requested jw productions to post JWprofileartistready.jpg on his flikr and share it http://www.flickr.com/photos/31344094@N02/4219921076/

Attribution-ShareAlike Creative Commons, this was done jw's flikr profile missionjw

Keep deleted Photo deleted from flickr, no indication of acceptable licensure. -- Avi (talk) 04:14, 12 February 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:Snow White and the Three Stooges-Promo1.JPG[edit]

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Snow White and the Three Stooges-Promo3.JPG. The same arguments apply. Even if we assume for safety's sake that this still is from the movie, it entered the PD when it was published separately without a copyright notice, before the movie was published with one. How could putting a copyright notice on the movie affect that? Putting a copyright notice on a PD work doesn't make it copyright, and never has. -- Zsero (talk) 22:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The interesting question is here whether this shot was published (in a legal sense) before the movie was published. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment As long as there is no evidence for that, the images should remain deleted according to the Precautionary principle. Kameraad Pjotr 20:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restored per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Snow White and the Three Stooges-Promo3.JPG. -- Avi (talk) 04:22, 12 February 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.

Images of Jorunn[edit]

I request undeletion of images deleted in accordance with this deletion request. The reason was that {{PD-Art}} tag cannot apply to certain images since some countries do entitle copyright protection on reproductions of old pictures (even ones in public domain). However, PD-Art policy has been changed since (see COM:ART#Other countries) so I think all the images in question can be undeleted. Regards, --Blacklake (talk) 13:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the images may have gotten the uploader into trouble in his own country, so the user did not want to take that risk -- it was also a user request, and that reason has not changed. We won't delete the same images if uploaded by someone else, of course. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, haven't looked at the problem from this point of view. Is it common practice to deny undeletion in such circumstances? Anyway, I'll reupload myself the picture I need. --Blacklake (talk) 18:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know about common, but deletions for that reason do happen on a case-by-case basis. And since it is valid reason for deletion, it is just as valid to keep deleted. Re-uploading from the original source (if you accept whatever risk is involved) is a solution. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Users can re-upload images as needed from domiciles where such action will not endanger them or cause them other discomfort. -- Avi (talk) 04:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Wilcoxpos2.jpg[edit]

Got deleted as Media without a source as of 15 December 2009 by User:Shizhao. I found it at http://www.wyomingtalesandtrails.com/butch2.html (last picture on page), but with a completely different description that makes much more sense than our version. According to this source, the image shows a posse hunting Butch Cassidy, not him and his Wild Bunch, who would not pose for such a nice picture anyway. Can we restore it with the new description please? --h-stt !? 21:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done, per Nard the Bard. –Tryphon☂ 18:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

Travis Foxworth Brackett Undeletion Request[edit]

i do believe that my article on Travis should be kept up. I have a bunch of friends who were friends with, or knew this magnificent boy. we all wanted something on the internet explaining to people what happened and how horrific it was. Plus, even people who had just heard about him could learn a little bit more about him, and where he came from with this article. this page means so much to us, and believe it or not it took a lot of effort of a couple adolescents to come up with this page. it would mean the world to us if you kept this page about Travis up....

Thanks so much For your time,

Friends, Family, and Acquaintances of Travis Foxworth Brackett — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.6.199 (talk • contribs) 03:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is Wikimedia Commons, a project dedicated to the media files. This project is not for articles. So clearly  Not done, re-read our project scope please. --Martin H. (talk) 10:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Art categories[edit]

Category:CULTURE/ART Subcategory: Painter from Luxembourg--LINKELS Josy (talk) 19:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CULTURE/ART Category: Art of Luxembourg Subcategory: Paintings in Luxembourg--LINKELS Josy (talk) 20:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Category:Painters from Luxembourg, the Category:Paintings in Luxembourg doesn't seem to have existed. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed. --O (谈 • висчвын) 16:11, 16 February 2010 (GMT)


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

Undeletion Request[edit]

Hello, The image file GayathriGirish.jpg that I had uploaded has been deleted owing to copyright issues. However, I request for an un-deletion as this image has been uploaded with personal permission obtained, of the person depicted in the image. Further, this image was also licensed under Creative Commons enabling free use of this image. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carnaticmusic (talk • contribs) 10:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File never existed. --O (谈 • висчвын) 16:20, 16 February 2010 (GMT)


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

Please reopen the Deletion Request on Images of Category:Burj Khalifa[edit]

Hi all. Can you please reopen the Deletion Request on Images of Category:Burj Khalifa and undelete the corresponding files?

My rationale:

  1. The deletion is not as obvious as it may seem. There are obvious cases that can be deleted quickly, but there are also cases that are far less obvious:
    • on certain panorama pictures Burj Khalifa occupies 5% of the whole image (File:Dubail21.jpg for example)
    • on other pictures, BK is hardly distinguishable (File:BurjDubaidawn.JPG).
    • if the mere shape of BK is copyrighted, then the deletion of diagrams (which have been listed as "not for deletion") should have been discussed too
  2. deletion of Category:Construction of Burj Khalifa has not been discussed although the files it contains are also tagged as "proposed for deletion" (same DR). This case alone is complex:
  3. Uncertain cases, like File:Burj Dubai, reflected in the pool of The Address Downtown Burj Dubai.jpg have not really been discussed. Just one opinion is not enough.
  4. The DR only lasted two days. For such a complex deletion request, it's too sort.

For all these reasons, thank you in advance for reopening the discussion.

Beside this, I wish there were some sensible hints given on COM:FOP: to what extent a picture falls unambiguously under a FOP deletion case? When the copyrighted work is the only subject of the picture, there is no doubt for me. But when it's only a part of it? BK can be seen from 100 km around, are we going to delete each and every picture of the UAE each time we see BK's spine somewhere in it? Shall we retouch the picture so that it doesn't appear anymore? Same question for other copyrighted material, like a movie poster in the street. — Xavier, 15:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Without commenting on the yays or nays of individual images, I  support this proposal. Based on the arguments above and the size of the deletion request, this should not have been given this unusually speedy treatment. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Support reopening the DR. In general DRs should last 7 days, while there are exceptions for obvious copyvios, a mass request like this needs full consideration. Most will probably end up being deleted, but I think a few deserve full consideration. I'm also concerned that the diagrams were not discussed properly (File:Diagramme plus hauts bâtiments du monde.JPG is probably violating in present form).--Nilfanion (talk) 11:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reopened. – Kwj2772 (msg) 13:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Can you please also undelete File:Dubai Skyline and Burj Khalifa - 25072008.jpg? It was deleted in the same process. Thanks. — Xavier, 15:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DR since re-opened; still open. --O (谈 • висчвын) 16:24, 16 February 2010 (GMT)

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

File:Rioita.jpg[edit]

Deleted as "Logo. Not regular fonts". However, the font is purely functional (no illumination or anything), hence {{PD-textlogo}} applies. For non-admins, the logo can be seen here (no outline or background, just the characters). –Tryphon☂ 09:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that is a misinterpretation of "regular", if the logo just has the lettering. I don't think that would be copyrightable in the U.S., though I have no idea if Brazil has a different standard.  Support undeletion I think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Fonts is not regular. Same situation as with music groups logos whose name if written in variety of ways. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure where you get the idea that non-regular fonts are protected -- the U.S. prohibition is against typeface in all its forms, i.e. recognizable letters, be they a normal font, custom font, hand-drawn letters not in a font, chinese calligraphy, etc. In that sense, a "regular" font is where you can recognize letters, as opposed to a font like Dingbats which is a bunch of non-letter graphics (which can certainly be copyrighted). You need to have artistic elements separate from the shape of the letters to be copyrightable, or perhaps a creative arrangement of the letters themselves. I have no idea if Brazil is any different, but I've never seen any reference that they are, either. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Art. 8º Não são objeto de proteção como direitos autorais de que trata esta Lei: (Are not subject to copyright protection of this law)

VI - os nomes e títulos isolados; (The names and isolated titles)

From Planalto.gov.br Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 13:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Restored. --O (谈 • висчвын) 19:01, 17 February 2010 (GMT)

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

Coin images[edit]

Several coin images that had a OTRS ticket ware deleted by administrator User:Eusebius please check validaty of OTRS, the original license and OTRS can be found on en:Template:WorldCoinGallery witch may or may not have been lost during transfer, the files are:

Other coin files have been nominated for deletion by the same user

--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 05:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The corresponding OTRS ticket is a permission from the photographer, but we have no permission from the central banks of the respective countries and the coin designs are copyrighted to them. See Commons:Currency for details. -Eusebius (talk) 09:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done (for the most part); as explained, these images are derivative works and permission from the photographer is not enough. –Tryphon☂ 04:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Abel Santa Cruz.jpg[edit]

It's in public domain in Argentina.Esteban (talk) 22:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When was it created? And when/where was it first published? –Tryphon☂ 16:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In 1970, it was published in Gente. Esteban (talk) 22:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That means that you have this magazine and scanned it. Please upload a little larger extract from that scan, with some small portions of surrounding text (not too much because of copyright) of that magazine and upload it with the appropriate license tag. Also "Gente 1970" is not much information. Provide issue/number and some more source information, see es:Wikipedia:Referencias on how to cite a publication. Think that would resolve the problem. --Martin H. (talk) 17:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, no proper source. –Tryphon☂ 04:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2010-02&oldid=113105873"