Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2010-10

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:Памятник Чайковскому.jpg[edit]

Was deleted as „Exact or scaled-down duplicate: File:Pjotr Tšaikovskin patsas Klinissä.jpg“ but the original file is this. Look at the history please, I have cropped this file not long ago. New file is a duplicate and should be deleted instead. Distorted (talk) 09:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

"Duplicates" deleted by Zirland[edit]

Please undelete the above. According to the deleting admin, these passed through the dupe tool. (here). Nevertheless, they triggered the delinker. Either the tool has a bug or they were not duplicates. In the first case, we would make sure the bug gets fixed or at least noted, then the images re-deleted.  Docu  at 19:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Support for example here. It was not replaced. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Im already doing this. --Martin H. (talk) 20:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC) ✓ Done, except user galleries. --Martin H. (talk) 20:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't the file description pages normally show the "this file has been replaced tag" from the dupe tool?
I numbered the files above. Sorting by namespace the result is:
  • Delinked in gallery namespace (1, 5)
  • Only in user and file namespace (2, 3, 4, 7)
  • Earlier deletion (6)
The last two groups are probably not that problematic, but the first group should have been replaced.  Docu  at 20:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed. Nothing to undelete, bug reports should go elsewhere if this was not just a temporary replacement problem with Delinker. --Martin H. (talk) 14:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Dmitry_Loschinin.jpg[edit]

Please, undelete this file as it is entirely our work and no restrictions are needed for this photo.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luxoft (talk • contribs) 14:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You did not specify a license for your image. Even if it's your own work, we require an explicit grant of permission for the file to be used for any and all purposes. Commons:Licensing explains the available options. If you are certain you're the copyright holder, and you agree to an acceptable license, I can undelete it for you. Powers (talk) 17:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, no free license provided. --Martin H. (talk) 14:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is a personal file, my own why is deleted?[edit]

File:CAMILA_ALVES.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Camila Alves Souza (talk • contribs) (UTC)

It looks like it was scanned from a print image. Did you take the photograph yourself? If you did not, it's not your "own work". Powers (talk) 17:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, in absence of an answer. --Martin H. (talk) 14:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The Coalition Band Photo[edit]

This photo was taken and edited by a Coalition member— Preceding unsigned comment added by CoalitionFightMusic (talk • contribs)

At last count, there were over five million photos on Commons; it helps greatly to refer to them by file name. File:Coalition at CAS.jpg hasn't been deleted yet, so this is not the right forum. The issue is you need to give us a license, and even that is questionable unless you actually know who took it and have their explicit permission; in the US and probably elsewhere, copyright does not transfer except by explicit written license.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Also it now is deleted as missing license and source. However, according to the original description it is not your photo and so, see also Commons:First steps/License selection, it can't be uploaded, unless the copyright owner explicitly allowed for publication under a free license. --Martin H. (talk) 14:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:€2 Commemorative Coin France 2007 TOR.png[edit]

I don't know why the €2 commemorative coin France 2007 50th Anniversary of the Signature of the Treaty of Rome was the only Treaty of Rome euro coin which was deleted from Wikimedia Commons. --84.61.172.89 10:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

see here. - Amada44  talk to me 19:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done No argument in this undeletion request. Your question why it was deleted was answered in Commons:Deletion requests/File:€2 Commemorative Coin France 2007 TOR.png. --Martin H. (talk) 14:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Minasanjose2.svg[edit]

I am very astonished how this file File:Minasanjose2.svg was deleted within hours without any discussion. It is/was a copy of a Drawing of a Chilean newspaper and hence is/was not a violation of the (original) author rights even less if the source is given. The copy is/was far to be perfect and actually I wanted to add some other data about the issue. --Createaccount 14:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand you implication that because it was a copy of a newspaper, it wasn't a copyright violation. I would conclude the opposite (it was a copyright violation because it was a copy of a newspaper). –Tryphon☂ 14:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have resored it and added it to a DR. Amada44  talk to me 13:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done, Commons:Deletion requests/Copiapó mining accident graphs --Martin H. (talk) 14:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Gliese 581 c in the habitable zone.svg[edit]

Please undelete this image, as the reason for deletion was that it is outdated. (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gliese 581 c in the habitable zone.svg)

Even though this article is no longer correct according to current scientific understanding, it has historical value, and is currently in use in an archived Wikinews article:

wikinews:Newly discovered extra-solar planet may be Earth-like (April 24, 2007)

--InfantGorilla (talk) 13:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restored, with a disclaimer in the description. --Dereckson (talk) 21:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gymnastics (aerobic) pictogram.png[edit]

Deleted image required for attribution path of File:Gymnastics (aerobic) pictogram.svg.--Svgalbertian (talk) 15:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. --Dereckson (talk) 21:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:MCAS Word test report.jpg、File:MCAS Excel test report.jpg[edit]

sorry！I forget to backup those picture.so I want to Undelete those picture what I upload--Onlymyself65536 (talk) 15:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done, temporary undeleted them. Please place a {{Speedy}} on them if you finished. --Martin H. (talk) 21:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bob Farrell.jpg[edit]

Please userfy me a copy of File:Bob Farrell.jpg, it is not proper here on Commons, but we are using it on EN:WP. Thank you!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader did not specify a license, you cant use it. Also we cant 'userfy' images. --Martin H. (talk) 14:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. The image was deleted as missing a license, the user never described a license or added a license tag to this image. So this image was not published under a free license. Additionally I saw en:File:Bob Farrell.jpg - hey, you can not simply grab images and attach free license to them, thats something the copyright holder must do. --Martin H. (talk) 19:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Repy 3.jpg[edit]

Deleted without a regular deletion request. The photo isn't just an example of a good quality but the subject is clearly visible and no other photo of this place (path) is available, as i know. --ŠJů (talk) 12:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - Poor quality confirmed as stated in the deletion log. No need to restore to delete later. --Dferg (talk · meta) 12:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Bygdø Kongsgård[edit]

Deleted instead of redirected.  Docu  at 05:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing done, if you want a redirect simply create one. --Martin H. (talk) 17:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To preserve the edit history, it needs undeletion. Besides, it's not clear why it was deleted in the first place.  Docu  at 03:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The authors are mentioned in history: Kejtil who created the category with two parent categories and Gryffindor who added an interwiki to en.wp, thats enough. If you want to create something like a redirect you not must ask here. --Martin H. (talk) 08:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

Restauration article Sophie Talneau[edit]

Bonjour,

J'ai créé hier une ébauche d'article sur Sophie Talneau qui n'était pas terminée mais elle a été supprimée pour manque de source. Comme c'était une ébauche je souhaitais la compléter aujourd'hui en ajoutant les sources :

- l' Express

- Audencia

Est-il possible de la restaurer pour me permettre de continuer mon travail ?

Merci.

Capsol — Preceding unsigned comment added by Capsol (talk • contribs) 15:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Commons is not a place for articles, additionally you never wrote anything on this project. You are on the wrong page maybe, this is Wikimedia Commons, not http://fr.wikipedia.org. --Martin H. (talk) 17:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Example of photo montage for propaganda purposes.jpg[edit]

I respectfully request that image [[1]] be restored due to the fact that the deleting administrator did not follow proper procedure according to the deletion guideliness. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose undeletion. See Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Vandalism#Vandalism_by_Adambro. If the content of that page or media file is intended solely for purposes of vandalism, personal attacks, and/or spamming it will be removed speedy, it doesnt make much difference if you create a page with text or upload an image for this purpose. Abusing the file namespace not protects your inclusion, or makes it ineligible for removing nor does the file namespace gives you the cheap opportunity to act inappropriate on this project. --Martin H. (talk) 03:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please point out what stated policies the image violates. And please read the thread completely. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I gave you the hint. Was uploaded with the intent to be used solely for purposes of vandalism, personal attacks, and/or spamming. If you have an opionin you may simply add it to a discussion, but dont abuse your ability to upload something here and dont abuse our featured picture process as a venue for that. Thats vandalism. --Martin H. (talk) 03:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Clearly out of scope. Creating propaganda about other commons users is obviously not an educational way to illustrate the idea of propaganda to external users. Since it was also a satirical attack on commons users or policies, that makes it even worse, and justifies the warning you received. --99of9 (talk) 03:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please point out, as per policy, not as per your opinion, for I fail to see "clearly" that the image is out of scope. And please answer the question if the administrator followed proper deletion procedure. I am the victim here, not the perpetrator. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have carefully read the scope of commons [[2]] and I cannot clearly (or hazily, for that manner) see that the image is out of scope. Please point out to me specifically where it says or what part of the common´s scope page may suggest that it is out of scope. It is not too much to ask, considering that my work is being censored.--Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Self-created artwork without obvious educational use." It is up to you to make obvious to me the educational use.
"Files apparently created and/or uploaded for the purpose of vandalism or attack." It is apparent to me that this file was created for the purpose of attacking Commons policies or the decisions of administrators.
"Files that add nothing educationally distinct..." If propaganda is the subject, we have plenty of better material that illustrates this way better to external users, who have never heard of "Mila".
Your image fails all three in my opinion reading of the plain meaning of policy. --99of9 (talk) 04:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

99of9, to answer your points, one by one:

:::"Self-created artwork without obvious educational use." It is up to you to make obvious to me the educational use.

It has obvious educational work as an example of a legitimate propaganda, editorial, advertising technique. Photo montages exist whether you are aware or not. That is a fact. This obviously has worked, for it has evoked and provoked reactions from some. As far as me making it obvious to you, well, that´s a real challenge, for I do not know your intellectual disposicion or cultural capital that allows comprehension of art, communication science and techniques. To erect yourself as the guardian of the gate and make a prerequisite for anyone to convince you personally of the value of something is no easy task, let alone ridiculous.

:::"Files apparently created and/or uploaded for the purpose of vandalism or attack." It is apparent to me that this file was created for the purpose of attacking Commons policies or the decisions of administrators

Vandalism is out of the argument, so that leaves attack. Who is the victim of my attack? What you add is supposition, not facts. And under the posibility that is is construed as an attack, it can alse be construes as critisim. Is that not allowed? Has wikipedia reached Nirvana? There is nothing improvable here? Please do point out the offended party.

:::"Files that add nothing educationally distinct..."

There are thousands of insect pictures in commons that no longer add anything considered distinct...

:::Your image fails all three in my opinion reading of the plain meaning of policy.

I will answer this with a Mark Twain quotation: Oh, dear, we are all like that. Each of us knows it all, and knows he knows it all--the rest, to a man, are fools and deluded. One man knows there is a hell, the next one knows there isn't; one man knows high tariff is right, the next man knows it isn't; one man knows monarchy is best, the next one knows it isn't; one age knows there are witches, the next one knows there aren't; one sect knows its religion is the only true one, there are sixty-four thousand five hundred million sects that know it isn't so. There is not a mind present among this multitude of verdict-deliverers that is the superior of the minds that persuade and represent the rest of the divisions of the multitude. Yet this sarcastic fact does not humble the arrogance nor diminish the know-it-all bulk of a single verdict-maker of the lot, by so much as a shade. Mind is plainly an ass, but it will be many ages before it finds it out, no doubt. Why do we respect the opinions of any man or any microbe that ever lived? I swear [I] don't know. Why do I respect my own? Well--that is different. - "Three Thousand Years among the Microbes"

And lastly, I ask again: Did the administrator follow proper procedure as stated in the guidelines? Does a policeman shoot the suspect before he brings him to trail because "he thinks" he is guilty? Did the administrator follow the guidelines as stated on the administrators community role? I am not inventig any of that, it is written in plain English. You cannot have an administrator carring out arbitray and abusive acts of power outside the rules, that is called vandalism! In the real world they are called vigilantes!!!

--Tomascastelazo (talk) 13:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he did. The reason is given at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Example of photo montage for propaganda purposes.jpg. Abusing such pages to stir up dispute is inappropriate. It is patent vandalism, the only intention of this upload was vandalism, and vandalism on this wiki is removed speedy - in case of images this will not be possible with a revert but with deletion. This also has nothing to do with censorship, you are free to say your opinion but you are not free to abuse our content for vandalism. --Martin H. (talk) 14:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Martin, point out specifically to the procedure he followed. Don´t just say it. There is a page that states procedures and guidelines. This is not about opinion. I hear a lot of defenders of the administrator, yet not one of you has taken the time to read the guideliness and least acknowledge that he acted outside the guidelines, which would be in fact a violation of wiki policy and a violation of the public trust. The administrator acted as judge and executioner, and did not even bother to fill the paperwork!!! Are you an accomplice of guidelines violations or do you stand by the side of obeying the rules? --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He followed Commons:Deletion_policy#Speedy_deletion. A file that was uploaded with the intent to be used solely for purposes of vandalism, personal attacks, and/or spamming. The file namespace does not give you the right to have your vandalism discussed before it is deleted. --Martin H. (talk) 14:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Martin, that was a fast and Orwellian action on your part... deleting history Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Example of photo montage for propaganda purposes.jpg! Why don´t you just point out the evidence that you have that supports your statement (or may I suspect opinion) instead of being an accomplice of bad behavior? You are deleting evidence!!! A policeman shooting the suspect before he brings him to the judge, and another cop hiding the corpse!!! So why even have the undeletion request? If administrators will not follow procedures, and other administrators rally around and protect that behaviour, what sense does this all make? If you personally were the owner of wikipedia you would have the right to do as you please, but you are not. Wikipedia belongs to all, including me, and we all deserve the protection of due process --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

99of9: In case none of what I say makes sense to you, please read Wikipedia´s own take on photomontages [[3]]. This is so you are not constrained in this argument only to your own opinion. The image has created controversy, so I guess at least it has demostrated that the technique does work, otherwise why would people outside its meaning gone through the trouble of censoring it? ;o) --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is Official Commons Policy on Speedy Deletions [[4]]:

An administrator will delete the file/page in due time. If anyone disagrees with the speedy deletion of a particular file, please convert to a regular deletion request (see below). Always make sure that all local links to a file or page are corrected and updated before deletion. The files/pages listed for speedy deletion are included automatically in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion and its subcategories.

Well, as the uploader of the image I hereby let it be known that I am the "anyone that disagrees", so I ask an ethical administrator to set this procedure in its correct path, according to the rules. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I ask not to do this. Surely as the uploader you disagree, it is too great demands on you to reconsider the whole uploading and abuse of COM:FP and to regret the whole issue. Now starting wiki-lawyering and giving you another forum will be a bad idea. --Martin H. (talk) 15:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Denied This image, and this nomination, screams w:WP:POINT - you know you're talking rubbish, but you're just doing it anyway because you want to annoy us because we blocked someone you like. Get over it. The image is not educational or in any way, shape or form suitable for a Wikimedia project. And now you use people opposing you as an excuse to accuse them of corruption, untruths and general malfeasance. I'd assume good faith that you truly meant the image to be useful, but you don't seem to be capable of showing anyone else any. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Akershus festning[edit]

Deleted instead of redirected.  Docu  at 05:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, someone already created a redirect - note: created, not undeleted. --Martin H. (talk) 17:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, there is some misunderstanding by the closing administrator, the category was undeleted: see http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&page=Category%3AAkershus_festning .  Docu  at 09:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Close. Rocket000 (talk) 02:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

Image:Masturbating Amy.jpg[edit]

Deleted on the grounds of scope without discussion. Past discussions have shown an enormous consensus to keep. Community consensus should prevail here, as it did for the most part when this bullshit initiated by our former "leader" happened. This image should be properly deleted by discussion if it is believed that it falls out of scope, as Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Masturbating Amy.jpg clearly shows a massive amount of support behind keeping it.

Continuing on that, the other deletions performed by User:Abigor should be reviewed for the same instances of an admin acting on a policy never fully accepted by the community, against a previous consensus to keep the image. - Floydian (talk) 15:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. If a file has previously been nominated for deletion and then kept by community consensus a responsible admin should know better than to delete it simply because they happen to disagree. If they feel it should be deleted they should open a DR and give their reasons for that, just like any other user. Could we please have a list of the deleted files (not available to me), or better still have a multiple undeletion request opened? Anatiomaros (talk) 15:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict)It was deleted under false pretences. The image was uploaded from flickr, verified by review, and then subsequently removed from flickr (most likely when they implemented their no adult content policy). It was deleted on the grounds of unknown copyright. Sources come and go, but we can't delete any and every image when the source page it came from becomes inactive - We'd have to delete half the web-acquired imagery on commons on those grounds. This is also a red herring. The deletion under review here is the speedy deletion as out of scope, not any previous deletion. - Floydian (talk) 16:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Or it was grabbed by someone from the web and uploaded to flickr or it was uploaded to flickr by someone who is trying to disgrace someone and was accidentially published under a free license. The deletion of the flickr account allows all this three, yours and my two, interpretions. --Martin H. (talk) 17:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • So are we here to disprove a negative? Has a copyright claim been raised against these photos that have otherwise been shown to be creative commons? If not, why are we fabricating possible scenarios in order to justify deletion? Its possible for someone to upload an image to their website, send an email from a generic email provider saying "I wish to upload this image, it was created by this guy and hosted at his website here", and then provide an email to the OTRS team from the dns. - Floydian (talk) 17:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because we also care about the legal quality of the images we host, this is not disgracedgirlfriends nor is this mysexygirlfriend. This photo is of uncertain legal quality and given the bad photographic quality too it simply not worth any more discussion. So says the second deletion nomination - a nomination that you not even mention with your request. --Martin H. (talk) 17:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Like I mentioned, that was purely because they weren't linked to from the deletion log when I browsed through quickly. The pornographic nature of the image, as well as its contrast, is irrelevant with regards to its legal quality; the point I am making is that any image can be uploaded here and users fooled into thinking it is legitimately free. I'm sure it has happened before. However, deleting an image previously approved on the ground of it POSSIBLY being copyright dumbfounds me. Until such a claim is justified, the image should be held under good-faith. - Floydian (talk) 17:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Oh c'mon, those Amy-stuff isn't worthy to restore. First we donna know the exact reason why it was deleted on FlickR. Second, they are of poor quality. Third, I strongly doubt that the person shown on the picture - let her call now "Amy" - is aware of the fact that everyone can see her. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Since this image has been restored I think the appropriate venue to suggest it is deleted would be in a deletion request. Adambro (talk) 17:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blue link. Rocket000 (talk) 02:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Again, an undeletion request[edit]

I hereby request again that the deleted file be channeled through formal deletion procedures as per Commons stated policy and guidelines. [[5]]

Furthermore I respectfully request that the behaviour of administrators in this discussion adhere to stated Commons policy, that clearly states [[6]] Apart from roles which require use of the admin tools, administrators have no special editorial authority by virtue of their position, and in discussions and public votes their contributions are treated in the same way as any ordinary editor (this would be me). Of course, some admins are influential, but that derives not from their position as such but from the personal trust they have gained from the community. Closing the argument early and without discussion of the issues is not within the scope of an administrator´s role. Additional information about proper administrator behavior can be found here [[7]].

Personal opinions of editors or administrators are one thing, openly violating procedures and disregarding policy are serious violations according to Wikipedia policy. All I ask is to have everyone within Wikipedia to act whithin the rules.--Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"everyone within Wikipedia"... Including yourself? Since when is COM:FP the appropriate place to stir conflicts or other acts of vandalism? --Martin H. (talk) 18:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The uploaded file is an intellectual creation by myself and it is a legitimate method of expression. Please educate yourself in the matter. The file was uploaded within the guidelines of Commons. You have yet to produce evidence of vandalism or personal attacks. Who am I attacking? What constitutes vandalism? Art, whether you like it or not, whether you understand it or not, is a tool for expresing a diversity of ideas. What is evident is that the administrator that deleted did so outside the stated guidelines and policies of Commons and worse yet, in violation of the spirit of Commons. All you do is shift attention with non arguments and zero evidence to them and defend an administrator who shows disgregard and disrespect to the civility intended by the guidelines of Wikipedia. The file is useful as an example of a technique, and the text bubble can be erased by another user to conver a different message. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You've had three users argue that this image was appropriately speedily deleted. Sometimes you need to learn to accept consensus and back off.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I have: a speedy deletion of a file outside rules, procedures and guidelines, and a speedy closing of an undelete request. Three administrators sitting as judges in a kanguroo court do not constitute consensus. Why were procedures not followed so that the image could have its day in court? Why do the other administrators fail to acknowledge that fact? Why not have the go through normal procedure? --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are retaliating more about this than the intention to undelete this image. If you want this file restored, focus on that and disregard what others are doing. ZooFari 22:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ZooFari, The thing is, by undeleting the file and having it go through the proper procedures, there will be a discussion as to the merits of the image and the merits of the delete request. That´s all. It is evident that nobody wants to get it there. Why? --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because that is not what this page is about. We do not restore files so that they can go through the proper procedures. This page is meant so that we can discuss whether or not the file should be restored and kept disregarding anything about why it was deleted. An undeletion request is the same thing as a deletion request, they both discuss the image. If you really have a problem with the administrator who deleted this image, keep it at the board. Don't be pointy here. ZooFari 23:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ZooFari, this is really unbelieavable! Are you really serious? Are you an administrator? Is so, I kindly invite you to read the very instructions on this page! [[8]]. So now I am being admonished for following civil procedures!!! All I ask is for compliance with the rules! But everyone focuses on cover up, insults agaisnt me, and a collective blindness to improper behaviour by administrators!!! Please read the top of this very page at least. This is the place where my arguments must be made!!! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure it says that this page is for discussion about the image in question, nothing else. You have just said it yourself. You are only here because someone did not follow civil rules, and that is WP:POINTY. This is not the place for it, this is. Anymore invitations, just ask. ZooFari 03:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The real problem here is nothing better than WP:JDLI. Acting on that basis is revolting. The administrator who deleted this file should be ashamed of acting viciously. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For deleting a file which is completely useless other than allowing the uploader to be a WP:DICK? As for WP:JDLI, I think that applies more to Tomas for his inability to accept that the file is not going to be restored, no matter how much he WP:WIKILAWYERs. We would be WP:LAX if we let WP:LET this get undeleted. The only use of this file is to attack Commons admins, and that is not an educational use. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Matt&uck, what would happen if I called you a Dick? Would that be a personal attack? Beacuse you just called me that, and that is a personal offense to me. I don´t know you, you don´t know me, yet you come out and insult me without cause or reason. What´´s all this about? --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:YOU must preceded WP:IT by WP:WP, capitalize WP:ALL the letters, WP:NOT just the WP:FIRST, and WP:LINK it to some WP:PAGE on Wikipedia, for it to be WP:OK, otherwise you just come across as a WP:GIANTDICK. Rocket000 (talk) 02:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support undeletion request per nom and per Malcolm Schosha. Looks like it is quite alright to personally attack others if you are on the right side of the fence. So far, in the last few days, I've heard editors call other editors dicks, assholes and the like. They apologize profusely and promise not to do it again, but there you go, two days later... Mbz1, on the other hand, did not directly attack anyone, and does not apologize but gets six months. I guess it all depends on who you are, not on fair and honest treatment for all. Tomas' photo perfectly illustrates a photocollage used for purposes of political propaganda. Stellarkid (talk) 19:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Please bring to the attention of the community at COM:AN/U or similar, those users who repeatedly make uncivil comments as you describe. The validity (or not) of Mbz1's block or that some editors may apparently get away with calling "other editors dicks, assholes and the like", has no relevance however in deciding whether or not this image should be undeleted so let's not get distracted by that. If we were to focus on the fairness of this situation, one might conclude based upon how I've previously dealt with instances of users misusing the featured pictures process, e.g Pieter Kuiper, that I should have blocked Tomascastelazo. Perhaps those supporting undeletion and suggesting there is some unfairness here could say whether they think that, in the interests of fairness, I should block Tomascastelazo for a week. Now, focussing on the comments that Stellarkid make which are most relevent here, that "Tomas' photo perfectly illustrates a photocollage used for purposes of political propaganda", I would disagree. As has been said by others, for an image to be within scope it "must be realistically useful for an educational purpose". In this case, since the image refers to Mila being blocked, a concept which will be unfamiliar to the vast majority of the audience of our sister projects, it is difficult to see how this is "realistically useful for an educational purpose". I really don't think we want to allow Commons to turn into a host for content created and uploaded by Commons users which is really about expressing their opinions about disputes on Commons. Are those that support the undeletion really saying that this image isn't that? Adambro (talk) 20:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see [[9]], [[10]] and [[11]]. I think it will put this request more into the real context. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you realy think that COM:VP is a place exclusively for your opinion? The Commons community decided to created a Featured Picture process so that Tomascastelazo can go their and abuse it as his personal stage? A place where all people only listen to you? Your reference to human rights is patent nonsense. No one forbids you to say your opinion on the web, we only disallow that you vandalize our project. --Martin H. (talk) 14:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I am blind, there was a majority of votes in fav or of undeleting!!! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please restore downtown Waco picture[edit]

Please restore "Downtown Waco-LookingEast-cropped.jpg". Licensing should have been listed as my own when it was uploaded.

thanks,

Van Walker aka HuecoBear

✓ Done - please add a licence ASAP. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:TGV 2N2 4701 Basel.jpg[edit]

File:TGV 2N2 4701 Basel.jpg has got a watermark, so is to be deleted {{Watermark}}

See User talk:Aliesperet. mattbuck took care of this. --MGA73 (talk) 19:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Microformat logos[edit]

see Commons:Deletion requests/Microformat logos:

The images now is all free license, see http://microformats.org/wiki/buttons --shizhao (talk) 13:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The page is vague, and only suggests that authors who link their logos there, should add a free license. However they failed to clearly do so. For a bunch of the images the intention for free licensing seems fairly clear. Please do not undelete the duplicate, and thouroughly check the first image. --Dschwen (talk) 15:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Too simple for copyright, too trivial for educational use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I had the too simple argument on the tip of my tongue, but avoided it, as the images already had a regular DR and were deleted. If that didn't save them back then, why should we undelete based on that? --Dschwen (talk) 16:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only unclear issue I see is Dan Cederholm's copyright on the original logo. The button images are all trivial variants of the two blank buttons ([12] and [13]), whose authors appear to have licensed them under CC-BY-SA-3.0, so the only remaining question is whether the logo they incorporate is itself free. Did Dan ever get back to Ozhiker about that? (And yeah, I agree that there's a good chance the logo is {{PD-ineligible}} under U.S. law. Still, it'd be nicer to have explicit permission than to rely on that defense.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, I completely agree with this. --Dschwen (talk) 20:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I contacted Dan Cederholm in the original discussion, but he never got back to me with copyright status information. (I did prod him once more after the initial exchange) As far as I can see from this and this , the logo would still be copyrighted by Dan or by CommerceNet, unless they specifically signed away the rights.

If someone gets a copyright statement from Dan, and puts it into OTRS, that's when the undeletion request can be made. Until then, the images have indeterminate copyright status, so cannot be used in Wikipedia.... --Ozhiker (talk) 16:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The files were deleted because "CC-BY-NC-SA is not compatible with Commons". I think that all the files are {{PD-ineligible}}. Anyway on http://microformats.org/wiki/buttons#Microformats_Logos free licenses like cc-by-2.0 and cc-by-3.0 and cc-by-sa-3.0 are (now) mentioned. So I think we could undelete all files. However I only undeleted the first one because the otheres were so small that they were hard to see. I suggest that a new file is created as svg if still needed. --MGA73 (talk) 20:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure they're meant to be that small. I've undeleted the remaining images (except File:Hcard.png which is a duplicate). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Wappen Hakeborn.svg[edit]

Ordinarily, a SVG is not deleted when a PNG is uploaded, unless perhaps the SVG is of extremely poor quality, or doesn't actually contain vector data. If User:32X thinks that there are other problems with the SVG, then he should nominate it for deletion by the ordinary process, and not delete it just because a PNG was uploaded... AnonMoos (talk) 14:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done -mattbuck (Talk) 15:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Waalsprong verstedelijking 1999.jpg[edit]

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Waalsprong verstedelijking 1999.jpg Argument for deletion was They are not permanent, so FOP does not apply. My argument that it was permanent, was not given credit; but I found today the texte http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:FOP#Permanent_vs_temporary,: Whether a work is installed at a public place permanently or not is not a question of absolute time, but a question of what the intention was when the work was placed there. If it was put there with the intention of leaving it in the public place indefinitely or at least for the whole natural lifetime of the work, then it is "permanent". And that was just my argument, and FOP does apply. This now is my argument to ask for undeletion.--Havang(nl) (talk) 16:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where you get the idea that it was meant to be permanent. It's pretty clear to me that the two advertisement signs were planned to be removed as soon as the construction had to start. So it was neither "with the intention of leaving it in the public place indefinitely" nor "for the whole natural lifetime of the work" (the signs were not destroyed by time, they had to be removed). –Tryphon☂ 19:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The natural lifetime of the work was ending with the city quarter being build. The place were it stood was the permanent place of this temporary object. FOP applies. --Havang(nl) (talk) 06:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FOP cannot apply for a sign that was going to be removed. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have undeleted the file and removed the copyrighted areas. The rest should be PD-text. Amada44  talk to me 15:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you add a note about what you did to the description, so it's clear from the description alone that it's not a simple unedited photo?--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

otrs restore[edit]

We've received otrs permission for these files:

Ticket 2010101910002826 Rubin16 (talk) 14:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Trycatch (talk) 14:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Shakebar Undeletion Request[edit]

Could i please request for the Shakebar to be undeleted?

Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hseh2 (talk • contribs) 13:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, there is no Shakebar on Wikimedia Commons, also you have no deleted contribution. --Martin H. (talk) 14:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2010-10&oldid=113106191"