Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2010-11

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

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

File:Peter Altenberg.jpg[edit]

DCoetzee deleted this 1907 photo after Commons:Deletion requests/File:Peter Altenberg.jpg. But this is a free photo from http://www.zeno.org/Literatur/I/altenpor . All that is known about it is written on the print. According to Getty, that is Altenberg's own handwriting. Probably all that can be known about the author is that it was some Viennese coffeehouse photographer, struggling to make a living without having a studio of his own. He may have died of consumption in 1908. These deletions are introducing a 150 (or 170!) year copyright for anonymous works. But the law does not even say 100 (as on de:Datei:Peter Altenberg.jpg), the law says 70. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved. --Martin H. (talk) 19:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Karol (piosenkarz turystyczny).JPG[edit]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Karol (piosenkarz turystyczny).JPG was closed as delete for no good reason. Images must not be deleted because they are not in use on a wikimedia project right now. This kind of deletions. Also, this was someone's only upload, biting a newbie without reason. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That file was uploaded on the 31 August in 2007 so I don't think thats biting a newbie and I don't really see the scope of the image. The red circle around the person makes this image even less useful than it already is. Amada44  talk to me 20:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is the only image Commons has of Karol Pludowski. It was nominated because it was uncategorized, and some people cannot stand uncategorized images. This kind of deletions is totally arbitrary. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 02:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: Some prior discussion is at my talk page. Kameraad Pjotr 09:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kameraad Pjotr says it is out of scope because neither English nor Polish Wikipedia has an article about the person. I do not know the artist, but I see it horrible if an image cannot be uploaded here before there is an article about the subject. Project scope is (in this case, among other things) about whether it is realistic that there will be an article about the person in the future. There are tons of persons badly needing yet unwritten articles. Tons of buildings, tons of museums, tons of any category of articles. If I take a photo of them I want to be able to upload it to Commons and forget about it, not periodically screen different Wikipedias about whether an article now has been written.
So the decision has to be based on some knowledge about the Polish (I suppose) music scene. Any one person (as Kameraad Pjotr) cannot be supposed to have knowledge enough. If he has, then the out-of-scopeness should be documented by the reasoning, either that he knows the artist and can explain how little he has achieved or that he knows the specific genre and should know any remarkable artist. I understand Kameraad Pjotr has no such specific knowledge, but takes the non-existence of an article as proof. That is not enough, especially as somebody else, not having personal connections with the artist, thinks he might be interesting.
--LPfi (talk) 10:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I have just ask an admin on pl.wikipedia (via irc) and the only edit of that user there was just vandalism/joke so I think we can safely say that this image was used as vandalism/joke and is therefor 100% out of scope and really not worth the effort. Pieter: the problem I see with uncategorized media is, that about 60 to 80% of the media there are either: copyvios, vandal images (like this one), or completeley out of scope. Especially because of the copyvios it is important that we work through them. Amada44  talk to me 10:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is ridiculous to talk about "vandalism". And why would this be a joke? The guy exists, see here, here and here. People find him entertaining and funny - that does not make the upload a joke. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I only said what the pl.admin told me: 

zlyadmin:		 what's the problem?

Amada44	no problem, I just need an info: could you check what kind of contribution this user did? http://pl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Specjalna:Wk%C5%82ad&target=Qwert9098

zlyadmin:	 he had only one deleted edit, it was a joke or a vandalism, on 20:18, 31 aug 2007, nothing more

Amada44:	 thats what I thought. Was it more vandalism or more of a joke? (I am asking because someone wants an image of that uploader undeleted on commons)

zlyadmin:	 rather a joke - an article about imagined man, walking through the mountains, probably about himself or sth like that ;) really hard to exactly be said, maybe a tomfool(?)

I am not going to comment here any more and I also don't really care if the image is undeleted or not. Just, if the homewiki deletes the article of this guy, who is going to write an article where this image is going to be used? Also, the image quality is so low and the person is so small that its really hard to say if it is the guy you linked. Maybe you can get the pl.wikipedia article undeleted? then I would support undeleletion. Amada44  talk to me 10:43, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose undeletion. The image was 1024×768px large, showing a red tractor and a blue car (with license plate) in the foreground, and an unidentifiable human being in the background, in front of a farm house. The human figure on that image was 30×90px small; and the image was blurry overall. Keep deleted: out of scope, not useful, and no evidence that the person depicted actually was the person the file name claims it to be. Lupo 10:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Agree with Lupo. Per COM:SCOPE, files on Commons "must be realistically useful for an educational purpose". This image basically shows a small human-shaped blob with very few distinguishable features. Comparing it to photos of Karol Pludowski found on Google's image search does not conclusively rule out the possibility that the person in the image might indeed be Pludowski, but the image is small and blurry enough that it could just as well be any one of millions of other people. Even if an article was written about Pludowski and this image conclusively identified as depicting him, I do not believe it would convey any information to the reader that could not be much better conveyed by a simple verbal description of the subject. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - I cannot fathom any educational purpose to this image. It is completely useless for identifying the subject, as illustrated by the fact that someone felt the need to circle the subject in red. 12:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

 Not done -mattbuck (Talk) 20:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

category:Japanese karuta armor[edit]

This category was deleted after I created it (Page is out of project scope: Commons galleries are for collections of images, Articles belong in Wikipedia) I was in the process of making a list of images to be added to this category and had not added them yet when the category was deleted, please undelete it so I can add the images. samuraiantiqueworld.com (talk) 23:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. If you want to create a Gallery feel free to do so. The start article was moved to User:Samuraiantiqueworld/Japanese karuta armor. --Martin H. (talk) 20:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Moebius scarf[edit]

The Mobius scarf is often called the infinity scarf. When hand knitted it is a real thrill for as there are stitches to knit above and below the knitting needle. The scarf was knitted on circular needles. The scarf ends up like a figure 8 and looks very glamorous on.

LuciesMoebius

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Scoopygogo (talk • contribs) 09:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's very nice, but there doesn't seem to be any undeletion request here. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The user talks about Moebius Scarf page. Trycatch (talk) 19:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is kind of cool. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not done, Commons is not a place for such articles. Commons:Project scope. --Martin H. (talk) 20:31, 5 November 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.

request for undeletion of my photo-cherianphilip.jpg[edit]

dear concerned,

today i received a mail from Wikiadmin detailing that Sri.Binukalarichan has asked to delete my photo uploaded in the wikipedia Cherian Philip.jpg. kindly let me know why that photo has been nominated for deletion. Initially my photo was uploaded by Tinu Abraham Cherian. As that picture was very old, i have uploaded one of my latest photos. I have visited the URL specified in the mail, but couldnt find the provision for sending a mail. hence kindly help me.

-Cherian Philip

If you mean File:Cherian-philip.JPG, it has been nominated for deletion, but it has not yet been deleted. You may read the reason and enter an answer to that reason at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cherian-philip.JPG.
Similarly, File:Cherian philip.JPG (without the hyphen) has also been nominated for deletion and may be discussed at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cherian philip.JPG.
The name File:cherianphilip.jpg does not appear to ever have been used.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. In fact I've deleted them. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:WU Wiki SAFEDONOR.jpg[edit]

Please, undelete due to ticket 2010110910011397 Rubin16 (talk) 16:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Trycatch (talk) 08:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

OTRS 2010111210004639[edit]

Never thought that we could get such a permission :) Rubin16 (talk) 16:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done --Trycatch (talk) 16:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Brookgreen Garden Sculptures[edit]

I miss a lot of sculptures from Brookgreen_Gardens. And I miss a lot of DRs 78.55.157.239 20:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of speedy deleting sculpture in the USA has just been discussed at great length at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Images_of_statues_in_the_United_States. I have just restored File:Brookgreen Gardens Sculpture11.jpg to take a look. These raise many of the same issues. Was there a copyright notice? Was the copyright renewed? I would like to see User:EPO restore all of these and put DRs on them.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support, most likely. Lupo and I went through a lot of the Brookgreen sculptures before, and looked them up versus the SIRIS Art Inventories site to see if they documented any copyright notices (or if they predated 1923). I think a couple got deleted at the time, but many were actually OK. If someone went through and did a mass delete, they were most likely in error. The one which got undeleted above has a link to the SIRIS entry, which indicates it was signed, but no copyright notice. Statues had to follow notice requirements like any other work, and quite a number did not, so would be public domain via that route. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, in all fairness, these deletions were probably partly our error. We should have added some tag like "PD-US-no notice presumed" for the sculptures on the image description pages. Or at least have mentioned on the file description pages that SIRIS does not mention any copyright notice for these sculptures. Lupo 07:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Could be. I thought I had added the license tag to many of them though. And there may have been a couple we should have deleted, but didn't.
    No admin should just delete old images in this way. Without any notification, without a trace. This always requires an extra pair of eyes - tagging is the least that must be required, and photos of US statues generally require a regular DR. EPO must promise not to use his admin powers in this way. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with Pieter that US FOP (and perhaps all FOP) should have a DR. I think this is the moment to formulate policy on the subject. I have tagged {{FOP-cv}} with a DR -- the subject is too complicated for speedy. Is the subject de minimis? What is a public place? Who is the creator of the work? When did he or she die? See {{Map-FOP-Europe}}. And so forth. -- Not to mention all the US issues, which we see in this instance.
I can't agree, though, that all deletions of old images require two sets of eyes. Obvious copyvio remains a delete on sight as far as I am concerned -- and by "obvious", I mean the common use of that word -- something that 95% of our editors would recognize as copyvio without any discussion or further evidence.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've undeleted the following set of photographs:

In this I follow Card Lindberg and Lupo. I agree that such cases should not be speedy deleted and ask to file regular DRs if any doubt remains regarding their status. It would be helpful, however, to document in the individual file descriptions why these photographs can stay at Commons to avoid possible deletions in error. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Guitar_Wolf.ogg[edit]

A few short seconds of a performer on stage. There is NO IDENTIFIABLE MUSIC in this video, it cannot be considered a derivative work if you can't even tell what work is being performed. The reason given for the deletion is that this is fair use. No. Fair use is the use of someone else's copyrighted work for scholarly or non-commercial use, or in a transformative way. None of those are being claimed here. The work is, on its face, non-infringing. Despite *5* months of trying, nobody has been able to identify the specific work being infringed. And they won't be able to. The video does not infringe on any copyrighted works and therefore must be restored. -Nard the Bard 20:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Summarizing what I stated about this on IRC. The 'work' is the performance of the song, and the song itself. The author/group has copyright on those. This is a fixation of that work (one of the rights preserved to the copyright holder). Wether or not we can discern anything copyrightable in that fixation is not relevant to it's copyright status. Actually, it possibly makes it worse, in that it could be considered to be a misrepresentation of the performance of the group. TheDJ (talk) 15:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if misrepresentation of a work as a violation of performer's rights is accepted as a criteria for deletion on Commons. And I still am of the opinion that this cannot be counted as a fixation of a work with no identified work. -Nard the Bard 22:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't listen to the file, but if it's really impossible to recognize the work, I think it would count as de minimis, just like in the case of an out-of-focus (to the point of not being recognizable) copyrighted artwork in the background of a photograph. So  support undeletion. –Tryphon☂ 13:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose it's not de minimis, see w:Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Dimension Films. Trycatch (talk) 13:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa, you're right. It never ceases to amaze me how "friendly" judges are to the music and movie industry. I'll have to  oppose then. –Tryphon☂ 13:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That case involved intentionally using music from another's work and sampling. The video here is too obscured by poor quality and crowd noise for anything to be ascertainable. A high-quality sample is a very far cry from 2 seconds of a cell phone recording over crowd noise at a concert. This case also differs from the one you cite because they were able to tell what work was being infringed. The DR was open for 5 months and fans of this musician were unable to determine what was being played. I stand by my assertion that there can be no protectable work when a work does not exist. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 12:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Even if I think that this hard to call music I do not think that it has been documented without reasonable doubt that the performance is not copyrightable. See en:Performer_rights#Performers. I have to agree with Simonxag "If the performance element is de minimis, then what is the subject of the video?" --MGA73 (talk) 19:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Melnica-20151.png[edit]

The file stated in this header has to be restored. In discussion I show the reason why the photo is not copyrighted anymore. The author clearly states that he had no personal copyright, that the photo was done by the request and order of the museum, that the museum organized their voyage. The photos were done under the guidance of the museum's director. The photo itself was published in 1926. [In Russian:] В своих публикациях автор указывает, что 1) отправился в экспедицию музея, 2) действовал по указанию директора музея, 3) фотографировал для музея, 4) передал негативы и отпечатки музею, 5) с гордостью заявляет, что работы для музея выполнены им хорошо. Он пишет: «Поездка была организована дирекцией». Автор «охотно» принял это предложение, то есть загодя знал, что работает на музей. По словам автора, «отпечатки снимков и сами негативы я передал музею» (то есть не в музей на хранение, а музею как владельцу). А вот его слова из радиопередачи: «Негативы и позитивы я передал (имя директора) в музей по его, так сказать, заявке. Выполнил его распоряжение. Копии себе оговорил, что копии отпечатков я оставил себе».--PereslavlFoto (talk)

So we see this is a work for hire. [Russian:] Таким образом, это служебное произведение.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 14:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THREE MONTHS noone fixes this issue. It's already time to undelete this file, or else I nave to upload it again.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 12:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose. The fact that the pictures were intended for the museum or that the negatives where given to the director does not mean that the copyright was transfered from the photographer to the museum. Unless they signed a contract to that effect, the copyright holder is the photographer, no matter who organized or financed the photoshoot. –Tryphon☂ 12:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Support undeletion. Maybe it should be sent to ORTS. However I do not see the complications:
According to Russian law, there is no provision that the person who gives the commission on a work, has the copyright. The problem is related to the intellectual property. The law is general and is not very much concerned about photos. But just consider a different case: somebody pays a painter to make his portrait - is the client the owner of the copyright? In our specific case the owner of the copyright is the photographer, not the museum.
If however, this is not accepted, the copyright would be held by the museum, not the museum director. In this case the copyright starts at the moment the work was completed, and therefore has expired. Museums and other institutions do not have a copyright linked to 70 years after their death.
However you look at it there is no reason to delete. Afil (talk) 18:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why do I speak of the director? Because this position acts on behalf of the organization, because if a man claims himself as a museum director, he states himself representing a whole museum as a legal entity.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 19:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even assuming that the museum had the copyright and is represented by the director, in this case the length of the copyright would be, according to the Copyright Law of the Russian Federation 70 years after the publication of the image (in 1926) and not 70 years after the death of the director. Therefore the copyright would be expired anyway. Afil (talk) 17:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing heard since June so closed --Herby talk thyme 16:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

天地人志 (talk · contribs)[edit]

「しのはら実加」が削除審議されていますが、私は初版投稿者です。「紫乃原実加」は後に「しのはら実加」に改名したため、「紫乃原実加」をコピー&ペーストして「しのはら実加」を掲載しました。 その際に、「紫乃原実加」を削除すればよかったのですが、それを放置したのでこのような違反を引き起こしました。申し訳ありませんでした。「しのはら実加」ではなく「紫乃原実加」の方を削除いただけないでしょうか？ --天地人志 2010年7月28日 (水) 05:44 (UTC)天地人志

w:ja:Wikipedia:削除依頼/しのはら実加の話ですよね。すでに、削除依頼で同じことを書かれていますが、ここに書かれてもみなさん困るだけだと思います。日本語版wikipediaの削除の実務としては依頼理由の通りかと思われます。 Kyube (talk) 02:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly no one seems to have commented here but as this dates back to August I'm closing it --Herby talk thyme 16:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Untitled entry by 200.116.67.117[edit]

Los derechos de la foto en mención no están comprometidos y son de mi propiedad. Gracias Cordial salduo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.116.67.117 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Based on es:Especial:Contribuciones/200.116.67.117, I'm guessing you are referring to one or more of the files uploaded by Rubenlopera67. —LX (talk, contribs) 07:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing heard since August. OTRS permission should deal with this if required --Herby talk thyme 16:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

Undeletion of File:Videostrada Cyfra+ menu with Canal+ channels.jpg conceptually analogous to existing File:CANAL+LE BOUQUET.gif[edit]

Please undelete File:Videostrada Cyfra+ menu with Canal+ channels.jpg because it is conceptually analogous to File:CANAL+LE BOUQUET.gif, which is based only on simple text and simple geometry ineligible for copyright. Note that both files share the same design principles such as:

  • simple logo array
  • simple text logos

89.238.169.139 18:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It contains more graphic elements behind the word 'Canal+'. --Martin H. (talk) 18:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These graphic elements behind text are very simple, like those in File:CANAL+LE BOUQUET.gif. Difference lies only in higher number of logos which are consisted both from text and rectangle groups. 89.238.170.134 18:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Going only by File:CANAL+LE BOUQUET.gif (since I can't see the deleted image); the elements are too simple yes, but the arrangement is not. Weird as it may seem, arranging that many elements in particular spots (as opposed to an uncreative arrangement) is often enough to have copyright granted on that basis alone, at least in the U.S. No real idea about France's definition, but I would be surprised if it wasn't copyrightable there too. If the uploader (and not the company) was the one who arranged all of those, that would be different of course. But given that it seems to exist on the web as well (such as here), it seems to be a pre-existing work which would need permission from someone else. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Someone who can view deleted files should answer and decide and act here, I too saw File:Videostrada Cyfra+ menu with Canal+ channels.jpg before it was deleted, and it looks more like CURRENT rectangularly arranged File:CANAL+LE BOUQUET.gif, without any random misarrangements. 89.238.153.21 16:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that File:Videostrada Cyfra+ menu with Canal+ channels.jpg should be made accessible for voters at least by email, to allow them voting genuinely. 98.143.146.84 17:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the deleted image is a photograph of a television screen. The screen shows, in a grid, six rectangular logos of the type seen in File:CANAL+LE BOUQUET.gif. There is absolutely no creative element at work in the orientation or display of these six logos; it's a simple five-wide grid with five on the top row and one in the second row. The relevant questions are, to my mind: a) whether the logos displayed are simple enough to be PD-textlogo; b) if not, whether they qualify as de minimis; c) whether the photographer retains a copyright over this image; and d) whether such an image is within our scope. My gut feeling is a) yes (except maybe one of them); b) no; c) no; and d) no. But I'm not an expert. Powers (talk) 18:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Usability of File:Videostrada Cyfra+ menu with Canal+ channels.jpg = demonstrating of cooperation level between w:pl:CYFRA+ and w:pl:Telekomunikacja_Polska in articles. Polaczek (talk) 18:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because Clindberg's post is now obsolete, I clarify situation. Because File:CANAL+LE BOUQUET.gif is updated, things are now as follows:
Going only by File:CANAL+LE BOUQUET.gif (since I can't see the deleted image); both the elements and arrangement are too simple yes, but if the arrangement would be not simple, then following judgment occurs. Weird as it may seem, arranging that many elements in particular spots (as opposed to an uncreative arrangement) is often enough to have copyright granted on that basis alone, at least in the U.S. No real idea about France's definition, but I would be surprised if it wasn't copyrightable there too. If the uploader (and not the company) was the one who arranged all of those, that would be different of course. But given that if it seems to exist on the web as well (such as here), it would seem to be a pre-existing work which would need permission from someone else. Stvx (talk) 20:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Problem still unsolved. When it will be solved? We can wait wait wait wait wait wait wait wait wait and wait infinitely, so what's now? I wonder how long this topic still can be in deadstandstill, perhaps eternally? Who knows? I dunno. 83.10.103.73 18:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like no one is willing to take a decision on this. Since the deletion was not so obvious after all (see Powers' comment above), and so that people willing to look into the issue can actually see the image (there's been a lot of guesswork here), I  support undeletion and (if necessary) a DR. –Tryphon☂ 19:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have undeleted and opened a DR here: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Videostrada Cyfra+ menu with Canal+ channels.jpg. Please comment there. Powers (talk) 18:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems sorted - why not close it? --Herby talk thyme 16:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:WLANL_-_M.arjon_-_Beeld_Benny_Bl&-195;&-188;hm.jpg[edit]

File:WLANL_-_M.arjon_-_Beeld_Benny_Bl&-195;&-188;hm.jpg was deleted on the basis of a technicality, as the original sculptor was apparently not mentioned. Nevertheless, permission to photograph this sculpture and distribute it under the terms of CC-BY-SA was AFAIK explicitly granted by the museum that has this sculpture in its collection, see http://www.wikilovesart.nl/jhm which mentions "27021 Beeld Benny Bluhm, 3185" (that should be this sculpture). I have not yet been able to ascertain the name of the original sculptor, but I see no reason to assume that this is any kind of copyright violation. Pbech (talk) 22:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly no one seems to have commented here but as this dates back to September I'm closing it. Frankly more information about the sculptor would be required to make a sensible decision - re-open if needed --Herby talk thyme 16:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:La_Verdadera_Bandera_de_España.svg[edit]

That image was deleted, but I think that it was an error. I would like that that image is restored, please. Viewing its deletion request, there is not any motive to have deleted the image. It was a satiric flag, that it mixed the republican Spanish flag and franquist flag. There is here, on commons, a category dedicated to store images like that.

Also, look at the deletion request. Motives to delete the image almost were not given. Please, restore the image. Luispihormiguero Any problem? 17:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Texto en cursiva[reply]

Deletion rationale is Out of scope - Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose. --Dereckson (talk) 20:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, if you wish to restore the picture, you can provide a rationale explaining why this flag have some an educational value. --Dereckson (talk) 21:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it is totally necesary that images has an educational value, why do not we delete images like this, this or this? I repeat it: There is a category made for store fictional or sarcastic flags! So, no motives to delete. Also, I think that there are on commons something similar to Department of Fun of wikipedia. That image was part of it. Luispihormiguero Any problem? 14:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't asked you why not to delete other pictures, but why to restore this one. The category about sarcastic flags contain flags used. Yes, it is totally necessary that images has an educational value, the trick is educative value means informative, useful to illustrate concept, and not academic.
How could we use Anonymous_Flag_by_D3L1GHT to illustrate something?
For example, Banana republic.svg could illustrate the Banana republic (and it's used to by br. wikipedia). --Dereckson (talk) 00:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've filed a DR for File:Antartican flag.JPG. As Dereckson notes, File:Banana republic.svg is in use, and it seems at least plausible to me that File:Anonymous Flag by D3L1GHT.jpg might be educationally useful for illustrating Anonymous (although I wouldn't really oppose if someone DRed it either). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, Ok... Luispihormiguero Any problem? 10:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen the image in question, but traditionally Commons has been rather tolerant of "Special or fictional flags", as long as they aren't deliberately hoaxing or hatemongering. If this de-facto policy is to be changed, then the matter should probably be discussed at Commons:Village_pump. AnonMoos (talk) 18:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has become dormant - I see no compelling reason for undeletion so I'm closing it --Herby talk thyme 16:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

Required Undelete, for various files :[edit]

Required Undelete:

is required for this file below here undelete (no cancellation) and removal of tags included, because all files uploaded have known source, author and license valida.Questi known files have been uploaded by me with commons: upload and my thesis has value ,is  Keep.
The files are all with know  : source = [own work] | author = User | | license = self | CC-BY-SA | PD-Author.The following files here:
Thanks for your attention - --Alpha (my name is nobody...) 18:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They didn't deleted yet but more likely that they will deleted. Geagea (talk) 18:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These files are regular and still support my thesis of  Keep, thank you --Alpha (my name is nobody...) 20:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing this files and the sources it is quite obvious that the author is wrong and that the self-licensing "released into the public domain by its author, Alpha30" is also wrong. I wounder about the block on it.wp [1]. However, close here, nothing to undelete - at the moment. --Martin H. (talk) 12:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Appears resolved so I'm closing it --Herby talk thyme 16:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Cavalry charge by the Ottoman army in the Sinai.jpg[edit]

Definitely PD (source here), but deleted after Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cavalry charge by the Ottoman army in the Sinai.jpg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Validly sourced - undeleted --Herby talk thyme 16:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Wikipedia pic.jpg "Tom Brower" picture for established Wikepedia page of the same name[edit]

Aloha, I would like to submit this photo taken of me with my car's license plates back in Oct. 2006. It was taken on my camera. I am happy to contribute this picture to Wikipedia Commons. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom Brower (talk • contribs) 02:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the file was that we needed proof of permission to post it. See Commons:Deletion requests/Tom Brower VOTE License Plates. If you send a valid permission or provide a link to where a valid license/permission is located the file can be undeleted. --MGA73 (talk) 19:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing else heard so I'm closing it as left deleted --Herby talk thyme 16:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Film-poster12.jpg[edit]

DR was closed for no good reason. It does not matter whether the movie is still copyrighted. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion request was closed 5 months after nomination and still the file had a completely wrong license (=no copyright tag) and the required license information was not provided to say that the image is free or not. No need to keep such bad uploads only for the reason that it was uploaded, This is not an google images mirror. Should have been speedied 7 days after upload because of obviously missing legal information. --Martin H. (talk) 20:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is just no copyright notice on this poster. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PD-US-no_notice should be able to be determined by just looking at the poster. The logic in the DR is not too great -- unless the poster contains a frame from the movie, or is directly based on such a frame, it's not a derivative work. The photo linked above though is 1) a bit small to see if there is actually a copyright notice in smaller print, and 2) does seem to have a couple elements which may be frames from the movie. But even if a derivative work, they may have lost copyright on the poster itself anyways due to lack of notice, since the copyright owner is presumably the same. [There was a case where a movie itself became PD through lack of renewal or notice, and distribution was prohibited because of the still-existing third-party copyright in the original book, so it does not always follow that lack of notice on a derivative work means it is OK to distribute. But it may be different when the copyright owners are the same.] Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I found a really large size scan, and I was wrong. At the bottom rim it says: "7244 Copyright 1957 United Artists Corp. Litho in USA Property of National Screen Service Corp. Licensed for display in connection with this picture at your theatre. Must be returned immediately thereafter. 57/93" /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so obviously not PD-US_no_notice. Renewal would have had to be in 1984 or 1985; those are searchable online. I think National Screen Service Corp was bought by other companies once or twice though, so figuring the correct owner to search for may be a bit difficult. Although United Artists is the copyright holder from the looks of it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done It is not PD-US_no_notice and we have no proof that there was no renewal. If someone does a check that confirms that there was no renewal feel free to start a new udel. --MGA73 (talk) 19:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:FuMO_15_Scheer.jpg[edit]

new evidence - you are wrong ! the author of the foto served in the danish army. In da.wikipedia he is listed as commander of the Livgard in 1960 read here : http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Den_Kongelige_Livgarde — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gonzosft (talk • contribs)

What author? (Source was this page). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The uploader gave this source as reference on Jameslwoodward's homepage. The only annotation is [F.G. Tillisch] [Museumscenter Hanstholm]. I doubt that this could prove the speculations of Gonzosft nor it can be used as a valid source that can confirm the use of the {{PD-Denmark50}}-licence. --High Contrast (talk) 14:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to have been dealt with --Herby talk thyme 17:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

request for undeletion[edit]

This is a project of a not for profit organization, why was it deleted?

Ohkay... first off, what image are you on about? We don't know unless you tell us. Also, sign your name with four tildes (~~~~) so we know who you are. As for why your whatever might have been deleted, at a guess it might have been because it didn't have explicit permission for the image, it might have been out of scope, it might have been a copyright violation for some reason (eg freedom of panorama). -mattbuck (Talk) 21:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing else heard --Herby talk thyme 17:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

otrs 2010110110007184[edit]

Please, undelete following files due to OTRS-permission:

Look to have been undeleted --Herby talk thyme 17:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

deleted picture[edit]

WHY YOU DELETE THE PICTURE OF MY OWN MY OWN CAR!!!!??? Thats my wartburg 353 and i made this picture!!!!!!!!!!

You refer to File:Wartburg353s.jpg that you reuploaded already. Apparently in ~2 years you uploaded nothing but stolen photographs. So dont blame us (me in this case) for one wrongly deleted file, I not separated this file from all the other copyright violations. Blame yourself for the upload of files that you just grabbed from the web and claimed your "own work" (Тя е изцяло мое собствено произведение). Thats much worser and worth some more exclamation marks than you just used. --Martin H. (talk) 19:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No need to undelete when you have reuploaded. --MGA73 (talk) 19:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

Undelete various musician photos: declaration sent[edit]

I have sent an OTRS for these images confirming their release with CC and GNU licenses. There is some concern that my source images on flickr are "All Rights Reserved." I have the rights to the images on flickr, and I have created derivative works of these by cropping, resizing and filtering them. It is these derivative works that I have released to the Commons and uploaded here. Please un-delete them, now that the declaration has been sent and received. Ticket#2010111210016761

  1. File:Geoffrey Kelly.png
  2. File:Hugh McMillan.png
  3. File:John Mann.png

Thank you. Drhaggis (talk) 00:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to have been done but no one closed this --Herby talk thyme 12:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ask for undeletion...[edit]

I ask for undeletion "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Historic_evolution_of_global_temperature.jpg" see the file's discussion(http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Historic_evolution_of_global_temperature.jpg): "there was an evident violation of copyright with MYSELF"! The original file is mine, (As I have already said previously in the discussion). So, the request for deletetion was wrong, I have not violated any Copyright and now I ask for undeletion this file. Tanks--23Simon (talk) 16:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* keep : In the english image there are that grafh , that grafh was already repalced!!!! for this comment I have already won the discussion, see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Historic_evolution_of_global_temperature.jpg (6 keep - 5 delete)--23Simon (talk) 16:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Please note that the outcome of Deletion Requests are not decided by who has the most "votes", it's a discussion where an admin makes a qualified close based on arguments/evidence. Thus nobody "wins" a discussion just by having multiple users saying "keep". Finn Rindahl (talk) 20:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done DR was correctly closed --Herby talk thyme 17:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

Category:Photos of Shane T. McCoy[edit]

I started Category:Photos of Shane T. McCoy. Subsequently

  1. a category with a better name, Category:Photographs by Shane T. McCoy was created;
  2. a bot moved all the images from the old category to the new one;
  3. the old category was deleted.

I know it is routine to delete old categories. Usually this isn't a problem because categories don't usually contain any editorial content, and it isn't important to preserve their contribution history. But I suggest this category represents an instance where the bot erred in deleting the old category, as the contribution history was worth preserving.

I am not being petty. I don't particularly care that my contributions to the text at the top of the category were lost. But I know that Mr McCoy, the photographer, noticed that the category had been created here, and made some good faith changes.

I'd like to contact Mr McCoy. I uploaded an additional image today -- File:Goggled Guantanamo captive, 2002-01-11.jpg. I know Mr McCoy was the only photographer on-site the day the first twenty captives arrived. I'd like to contact him to get him to confirm, via OTRS, that he took this image, as I couldn't see where it was credited to him, as it should have been. But first I would like to have his contribution history restored.

I don't understand why, instead of deleting old categories, we instead changed the old category to redirect viewers to the new category.

In this particular instance could an administrator graft the revision history of the old category to the beginning of the new category?

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 01:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I renamed it and deleted it. The category name is missleading, a category redirect for multilingual purposes is not justified. I manually transfered the file history to the new category Category:Photographs by Shane T. McCoy, that should be enough. --Martin H. (talk) 03:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, from your comment I thought you had fulfilled my request. Could you please graft the actual revision history of the original category to the current category? Geo Swan (talk) 06:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did so as best as possible [2], I repeated all edits. Moving is not possible for categories. --Martin H. (talk) 20:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this has been undeleted --Herby talk thyme 17:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Hamid Mir interviewing Osama bin Laden.jpg[edit]

There was OTRS permission for this file, that had been provided by the journalist Hamid Mir. Yet it was nominated for deletion Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hamid Mir interviewing Osama bin Laden.jpg, because he was himself in this photograph with Osama bin Laden. And User:Rama deleted it. Well, in other case like File:Wm2007 DrorK and Bastique (with troll).jpg it is argued that the person handing someone his camera to be photographed acts as the director, like in a movie. And we have File:J.delanoy and Jimmy Wales.png. And there is no copyright in Afghanistan anyway. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1) The OTRS ticket pretty much admits that the uploader does not have the rights to publish the image under a Free licence. Did you read it?
2) We do not know how the photograph was taken
3) Even admitting that "there is no copyright in Afghanistan", we do not know where the photograph was taken and published.
Too much wishful thinking here. Rama (talk) 07:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, OTRS tickets are secret. But a simple question maybe can get an answer: was there permission by Hamid Mir? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Pretty much admits" is pretty vague. I suppose somebody else took the picture, but do you means the OTRS ticket says he did not get any permission? That it does not explicitely say he got permission would be irrelevant, as him giving permission to us clearly means he believes he has the right (or that he is lying, but then we should have some reason to believe that). --LPfi (talk) 08:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken a look at the OTRS ticket 2009110510062011. According to the ticket, the picture was sent by email to the uploader. The uploader subsequently sent the text of our general declaration to Hamid Mir and got a confirmation back. This declaration states I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of WORK attached to this E-mail. but adds no comment how this picture was actually taken. What the uploader "pretty much admits" is that he was not sure how to fill out the {{Information}} template in this case. In general we accept such declarations but even if I trust that Hamid Mir has the copyright I would still prefer to ask for the name of the photographer as some legislations require it (§ 13 UrhG in German law, for example). It is, of course, also possible that Hamid Mir himself is the photographer. In the image Hamid Mir has some device in his hand which could be some remote control of his camera. Finally, I would like to add that we must take care that the process of organizing such photographs does not become too frustrating. The uploaders are usually not familiar with all the possible precautions we need to take and much of the responsibility rests with the OTRS member who decides if a permission is sufficient or not. If an upload is finally tagged with {{PermissionOTRS}} we should not too easily delete it just because we have some doubts. I find it more preferably to at least to attempt to obtain missing informations while this picture is still present. Thus, I suggest

  • to undelete this picture temporarily and
  • to contact the copyright holder and to ask for the name of the photographer (this is easier if we can refer to the photograph as there were multiple photographs mailed to the uploader).

Any objections? I would otherwise do both. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do have objections. This photograph is clearly not reliable in its present state and undeleting it is not necessary to clear its permission issues. Sort the permissions first, undelete later if possible. Rama (talk) 09:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) It should not be necessary to bother Hamid Mir about the name of the photographer. It was probably just some guy with a beard. Unless one also insists on J.delanoy to provide the name of the person who pressed the button of this photo. And the concept of copyright does not seem to exist in Afghanistan. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1) Stop saying "guy with a beard". It mean nothing and only convoys undertones of racism and of contempt for the rights of people. A bearded man is entitled to copyright, even if he is a terrorist, even if he is Pakistani.
2) COM:OTHERSTUFF.
3) Leaving aside the very debatable question of Afghani copyright, can you prove that this photograph has been taken and published in Afghanistan? If not, repeating "copyright does exist in Afghanistan" is only spin without substance.
Rama (talk) 09:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1) People do not write down names when they give their camera to a bystander to press the shutter. They may remember that is was "some guy with glasses" or "some guy with a beard".
2) Double standards.
3) Hamid Mir does not need the helpful bystander's permission to publish this in Pakistan or Germany. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
People bring sound technicians and photographers to a film shoot. If you are the boss, like Mr Mir, then they are your employees, and their work is a work for hire, that would belong to Mir. Geo Swan (talk) 16:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Support undeletion. If Rama had opposite to consensus opinion on deletion of this highly used picture, he was free to voice his opinion in the discussion, instead of pushing it using his admin tools. I don't see why the additional verifications are necessary, but again, Rama as an OTRS-member was free to ask Hamid Mir about these things, or at least to cite some snippets from the OTRS permission for wider community discussion (as it was done by AFBorchert above). Trycatch (talk) 11:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Support undeleting this file per arguments given above. Can't we assume that Mr Mir either took the photo himself with a remote cord ot that he asked one of the mujahidin (presumably) to take it? If I give my camera to somebody to take a pticture of me that person does not own the copyright. On a somewhat lighter note, "guy with a beard" would actually be a compliment in a conservative Muslim country like Afghanistan, the only question being "em, which one?" Anatiomaros (talk) 21:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Support I support undeletion because I think Mir's claim to own the intellectual property rights to this image, even though the image shows him, is completely credible, since an image taken by own of his employees would be a work for hire, owned by Mir. Geo Swan (talk) 16:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've now temporarily undeleted this photograph and contacted Hamid Mir by email to find out who took this photograph. --AFBorchert (talk) 14:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No response was received in response to my OTRS email for more than two weeks. As the undeletion was temporarily I've undone it now, i.e. deleted it again. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I.e. there is still no reason to suspect Hamid Mir in a lie? Trycatch (talk) 11:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I do not suspect anything here. I just would have appreciated a clarification and had undeleted this file temporarily in the hope to receive a helpful response. As it was a temporary undeletion it is supposed to be undone if no clarification is received within some reasonable time frame. In case of a late response, we can still restore it. --AFBorchert (talk) 12:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just undelete permanently. This kind of deletions makes Commons such an annoying place. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:J.delanoy and Jimmy Wales.png. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! (Seriously though, it is a very good point.) Anatiomaros (talk) 19:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does somebody (other than Rama) think we know better than Hamid Mir whether he is allowed to publish this picture as he wants? Is there any reason to believe the photographer thought he would keep control over the image? Would anybody in the world, except us, refuse to use this image for the cited reasons? Having the photographer's name would of course be nice, but if we have no real reason to think Hamid Mir is mistaken, then there is no reason to keep the image deleted. --LPfi (talk) 21:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Pieter Kuiper and LPfi. This is one of the few images for this (in)famous subject we have and are likely to have. It was widely used on wikipedia editions. Please undelete. Anatiomaros (talk) 19:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted There is no reason to suspect that the OTRS ticket is not valid. That would be double standard with the current pratice. Most people here and in the DR agree that there is no valid reason to delete this picture. Yann (talk) 10:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please undelete - recieved OTRS for images[edit]

Recieaved OTRS for images please restore uploads of user Vg colt

{{PermissionOTRS|2010111110009967}} Vg colt (talk) 12:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

Deletion of File:Nissan_Mistral_004.JPG[edit]

Please show a reason of the deletion definitely.--Ten-nen 20:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Speedy closed. No reason to request undeletion. The file was never deleted, only vandalized with a deletion request by an IP user. That was already reverted an hour ago, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nissan Mistral 004.JPG. --Martin H. (talk) 20:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

OTRS 2010111110009967[edit]

Proxying the request per [3]. Concerns the uploads of user Vg colt. Not being an OTRS volunteer, I can't check whether that ticket is confirmed, or what its status is. If it is OK, undelete the files it applies to. Thank you. Lupo 22:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There used common form for OTRS, i spoked with CEO of tranceport record by phone, he gave permissions for following urls
http://tranceport.info/press/artist/sensorica/ - text for article
http://tranceport.info/templates/tranceport/images/logo.gif - for logo
http://tranceport.info/releases/audiocd/ - for album covers published under Tranceport Records
And for usage of picture of Alexandr Shukaev for wiki article (im writing it right now)
the copy of letter that was sent to OTRS in russian
[...]Email copy removed, sending it to OTRS is sufficient and, with regard to privacy, the better sollution. --Martin H. (talk) 11:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Vg colt (talk) 00:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
well somebody help me please to recover images, i want to finish my article Vg colt (talk) 12:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OTRS ticket is OK and provides permission for text from http://tranceport.info/press/artist/sensorica/; for images from http://tranceport.info/releases/audiocd/ and logo (http://tranceport.info/templates/tranceport/images/logo.gif). I will undelete images published there rubin16 (talk) 15:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, deleted images come from [4], not from [5]. That's why they can't be undeleted: I've seen only File:TPDD005.jpg on this page and undeleted only one file rubin16 (talk) 16:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2010-11&oldid=560864571"