Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2011-06

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:Seal of North Dakota.svg[edit]

I am requesting this file be undeleted. First of all, it was deleted without giving me time to respond to the deletion nomination, that alone is a violation of my rights. Second, it was nominated due to it's similarity to the file from Vector-Images.com. While the Seal itself came from Vector-Images.com, I altered the file itself significantly(and I can prove it!), therefore making it my own version, and I hold the rights to that version, I released it as PD, and the Seal itself is already PD under US law due to age. The file should be undeleted, I hold the rights. Fry1989 (talk) 19:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the icon on vector-images, I did not see any significant changes. Changing a couple colors is not a significant change, copyright-wise. The outlines seemed substantially similar, or even virtually identical, and at the very least it is a derivative work and must be licensed by vector-images. You would have to change things enough that you aren't using any of their outlines, almost to the point of not being able to tell that vector-images was the graphic source. I'm sorry, but this was quite blatant. You also claimed that the file was derivative of a different version, and was PD-USGov, which was absolutely not the case, and did not mention the vector-images source at all in the image description. That was a complete misrepresentation of the source and is grounds for speedy deletion. If you want to explain what changes you made, please do so, but it is almost certain to be a derivative work of a copyrighted graphic, and possibly not even altered enough to claim a derivative copyright. But, please describe the changes. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hold both the original from VI and my version. I intrinsicly changed how they are made. While the VI version uses sillouette, my version uses actual letters, circles, the stars are now independent, and the sun has been altered slightly. All these changes make the file significantly different from the VI version, and I can email anyone who desires proof both versions for comparison. I hold the rights to the version I uploaded. As for the license, I licensed the file as PD-US under self, not as PD-USGov, so that is false. I can also relicense it as derivative if that is neccesary, and can even alter other parts more as needed to make it more independent. Fry1989 (talk) 20:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately... those are arguably not even enough to claim a derivative work (letters are irrelevant to copyright). But even if it is, that is absolutely a derivative work and subject to the copyright on the original version. You really need to redraw every graphical element from scratch for it not to be a derivative work; i.e. you need to make it so that you can not recognize any expression from the original in your version. If even just the plow is the same, for example, it's still a derivative work, and it sounds like virtually the entire thing is the same, with some minor variations. Another user did compare the vector-images version with yours, and found visually no difference. The copyrightable aspects to that are the graphical components -- the tree, plow, etc. Those cannot be copied or derived from a copyrighted version, unless the outlines have all been completely changed. If you look closely at the vector-images version vs. the USGov version, you will see that every graphical element is completely different -- i.e. those are not derivative works of each other, as there is no expression in one which is present in the other.
This is a fundamental aspect of copyright; the owner of a copyright also controls distribution of all derivative works of the original. Please read en:derivative work for a start, and more info is available here. It is certainly possible to add enough of your own expression to qualify as a derivative work, although it has to be your own original, creative work -- simple changes like changing a couple of colors, stylistic changes like changing to outlines, using a different font, etc. do not qualify. If you redraw the plow from scratch, that portion is your own -- but the entire seal would still be a derivative work until you redraw all the graphic elements, and until then must be licensed by the owner of the copyright of the original in addition to you licensing your portion. Copyright is a tough subject, but this part is basic -- I would not use vector-images as a source for *anything*, basically, as it is very easy to have derivative works that way. Find a PD version, or draw your own plows, or find graphics elsewhere on Commons to build up your own. Yes it is hard, but that is why copyright is there to protect people from copying their work like this. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, the file itself is intrisicly made differently from the original version, not just the letters. I also said I can alter the version as needed to be even more independent so your argument is wrong. We need an accurate version of the State Seal, as it is used by the Government (all websites use this white version). If someone is able to make the seal in SVG themselves, then great, but I have done what I am capable of. On a side-note, we still have several files on here that are directly from VI, nevermind being derivatives, and I don't see them being deleted, so this is absolute nonsense. Fry1989 (talk) 21:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I'm not wrong -- you appear to have very little comprehension of what copyright is, which is unfortunate for someone so prolific on this project. You need to redraw it from scratch; at that point it will not be a derivative work and will be entirely your own. Do not use any elements from the vector-images version at all. By all means, take a PD version such as the USGov one, change the color scheme, and upload to a different file name and change wiki pages to use that one. Or, draw one yourself, perhaps partly by using graphics already on Commons. The USGov one is certainly not great, particularly at larger sizes, and other options would definitely be good. But that does not mean we can ignore copyright law to get them; rather respecting copyright is a fundamental part of what Wikimedia projects are. We cannot ignore copyright, even to make a better encyclopedia. Yes, it is hard work drawing your own stuff -- it's beyond my capability as well. I have a very special appreciation for those who can do it and are willing to license the result, as most people do not want to license them freely after putting in all that work. But we can't just copy (or create derivative works of) versions where the copyright is not licensed. As for other VI images on here, it probably means we haven't found them and nominated them yet. A few (bitmaps only) may be on here via some special copyright exemptions in other countries. Please point some of them out as we may have to delete them too. Vector versions from VI are particularly problematic if we have them, as it's easy to take components out of them and use them in other works, creating (unwittingly) an unlicensed derivative work. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I still disagree. I can point out plenty of examples of hypocrisy and contradictions over this matter. Either way, I have a favour to pull in, and I will see if I can get the ND seal made independently to please you purists. But I want the record to show I find this all in dishonesty and subjective contradiction. Fry1989 (talk) 21:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There can be a lot of gray area and arguable aspects to copyright law, and I'm sure we don't do deletions perfectly, but honestly this does not sound anywhere close. Open-and-shut case of a derivative work, at best. If you have questions, please ask, but please please do some reading and learn what a derivative work is. This is far from purism, rather you are committing blatant copyright violations. Copyright is not some annoyance to be worked around, or have uploads camouflaged to hide their source and authorship. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't try to camoflauge anything. I uploaded the file the way I know how. As for authorship, I am the author to the altered version I uploaded, even if the original source is from elsewhere. I did a great amount of work on the file re-doing how it was made so don't claim I'm not the author. Fry1989 (talk) 22:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You did work on the file, sure. Copyright has a rather specific definition of what constitutes "authorship" when it comes to copyright, and it's not certain you did that. But, for argument's sake, say you did -- then yes, you are the author of your alterations, but only those. It is still a derivative work, which means there are two authors -- you, and the author of the original work. There would be expression from both authors present. That author was not mentioned at all (rather you claimed a derivative work, or at least source version, of File:NorthDakota-StateSeal.svg, which is artistically unrelated). Furthermore, the author of that original work must agree to a free license for the derivative, as well as you providing a license for your additions. That was not done, and is required. Even uploading it is a copyright violation without permission from the original author; that original author controls distribution of all derivative works, per copyright law, which is the crux of the matter. Using a copyrighted graphic as a source work is almost always a bad idea because of this. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

Undeletion Request: File:Kylie Sturgess profile[edit]

Hello, I sent the following email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Please check if you need any further information. Thanks.

To permissions-commonswikimedia.org I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of Kylie Sturgess profile.jpg [1]. I agree to publish that work under the free license Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product, and to modify it according to their needs, as long as they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me. I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the work may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. 122.109.52.166 22:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)20th May, Kylie Sturgess.[reply]

OTRS in process; File:Kylie Sturgess.jpg restored temporarily. – Adrignola talk 21:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:LuisSHarguindeyWKings.jpg[edit]

I am the creator of that photo and failed to provide a license.

I want to provide it now and would be as public domain.

Thank you --Manuelharguin (talk) 14:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I'm assuming you took this photograph of a reception to the kings of Spain and Granada, in 1980, yourself. If you did not, please clarify what you mean by saying you are "the creator of that photo." Dcoetzee (talk) 01:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Karrer.jpg[edit]

This photo from 1937 was deleted by Kameraad Pjotr (talk · contribs) after Commons:Deletion requests/File:Karrer.jpg. This admin is on a deletionist crusade, requiring unreasonable evidence, the kind of evidence that would be unavailable for almost anything here. He is clearly deleting much more than Commons policies require, when other DRs can be speedily closed without such evidence. And he has a pattern of such deletions. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pieter Kuiper (talk · contribs) has been involved in at least three debates about images of Nobel prize winners.
He has taken a neutral position on the first and keep on the others. In the two cases, he has argued that the image was first published in Sweden and therefore was now PD under the relatively short Swedish rules for photographs. Several of us, not just Kameraad Pjotr (talk · contribs), have pointed out that the prize winners were notable scientists in their home countries before winning the Nobel Prize and would, in the ordinary course of things, have had studio portraits such as these available for press, university catalog, and other uses. In the Hodgkin case, we have shown that the image used by the Nobel Committee was, in fact, taken in the winner's home country and, therefore, was very unlikely to have been first published in Sweden. While the Karrer case remains unproven, it seems to me that there is a substantial probability that it, too, was taken and first published outside of Sweden. Our precautionary principle puts the burden of proof on the keep side of the vote, so this was correctly closed as a delete.
As for Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dunlop laarzen-1.jpg being speedily closed, this looks like a case of User:Pieter Kuiper once again taking retribution against a colleague whose decisions he doesn't like. There is no reason whatsoever to believe that the image, first uploaded in 2003 by User:Kameraad Pjotr and used on nine wikis, is a problem. The DR was simply a waste of our time.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jameslwoodward and Kameraad Pjotr have become the main deleters here. Their interpretation of the precautionary principle would lead to the deletion of almost anything. There is no guarantee that those boots are not from somewhere else. Many photos of boots are by boot manufacturers. So with their logic there is a "substantial probability" that those boots were published first in some boot catalogue. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question Not knowing Swiss law (nationality of person, hence the other likely place of a studio photo) in this regard, if it was 1937 and there is no known photographer, when would its copyright be expected to expire. I would have thought that if published at the time it would have been 1987. I am comfortable with a conservative approach though feel that there should be a suggestion of which licence would apply in this case in lieu of anything special for Switzerland, to me the alternative seems to be {{Anonymous work}} – anonymous work more than 50 years old (Berne convention) which predates URAA  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restored It is either {{Anonymous work}} or {{PD-Sweden}}. Even if first published in another European country, it would still be PD. Yann (talk) 21:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Nacionalizacion_servicios.jpg[edit]

A Peronist poster, was licensed with {{PD-AR-Anonymous}}. Was deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nacionalizacion servicios.jpg because it was anonymous. This does not make any sense. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pieter you just don't get it: The artistic work can be anonymous. No problem with that. But we need to know where and when the work has been published for the first time. Otherwise it is impossible to determine whether the work was published more than 50 years ago and whether it has been published first in Argentina. Both requirements of the law. Please read the law and then come back here to comment again. --ALE! ¿…? 09:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You don't yet it. It is a propaganda poster for Peron's first five-year plan (in effect between 1946-1951), it is the publication itself, all the information is on it. It is ludicrous to demand anything else. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are facts here that were not in the DR (which I closed as a delete) -- we have a date of publication -- not later than 1951 -- and, given the nature of the poster, it must have first been published in Argentina. We don't know the source, but I'm not sure we need to. Anyway, I undeleted it to take another look at it and, unless anyone objects, I'll leave it that way.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dont see the author information "Estado Argentino" verified by any source, it appears to be a plain guess or laziness but not an reliable information - but it is the essential information for the copyright status ("anonymous work belonging to an institution"). Unless a source can be provided that verifies this author information it should be deleted(not restored. --Martin H. (talk) 13:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restored Published before 1951, therefore PD. Yann (talk) 21:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Varghese_Palakkappillil.JPG[edit]

This file was deleted denying my claim that I am the sole owner of this file. w:Varghese Palakkappillil is a famous personality in Kerala, India and naturally everyone would doubt how I can own the copyright of the photo of such a famous person. I, Rahul Johnson Palakkappillil, belong to the same family as Varghese Palakkappillil and almost all the famous photos of him have been taken from our family album. Some color photos were made to draw in a studio. Fr. Varghese is my great great grandfather's brother. Undoubtedly I own the copyrights of all these photos. I was not sure if my claim will be accepted by other users. Thats why I did not stress much on that point. But now since my file was deleted I am disclosing the fact that I am a close relative of Varghese Palakkappillil and I own the copyright of many of the photos of Varghese Palakkappillil. I request the users here to believe me and restore the deleted file.Achayan (talk) 07:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the owner of the images who has the copyright, it is the person who took/made the image, in this case the photographer. If they are indeed family photos, then it is probably going to be difficult to know who took the photos, then whomever is the legal heir(s) to the estates of the photographers will own the copyright and the right to release to the public domain. I would suggest that you look to follow the processes at Commons:OTRS and identify the images and once that is received and processed, then we can look to retrieve the images.  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose I closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:Varghese_Palakkappillil.JPG as delete. In that discussion, Achayan wrote:
"Learn the rules buddy. Derivative work means editing or modifying an already existing file. This is a new photo drawn and created by me. It has no copyright problems either."
That is different from what he or she claims above. I don't know what the facts are, but I know that there is enough uncertainty so that our precautionary principle should apply.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I told i did not stress on it because i was not sure if the users will trust me. I am truly the owner of that photo.Achayan (talk) 06:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose, per Jim. Im "Voting" oppose here instead of closing the undelrequest right away, the reason is on hand: COM:PRP, I not feel comfortable with uploaders changing their copyright or ownership claims based on their needs to upload, and not based on the real legal status of the media file. --Martin H. (talk) 14:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Looks like the user did not understand the rules properly on the first upload. To me, the claim looks genuine and the file can be restored. We should treat novice users in a little more better way. The file is certainly not {{Out of scope}} either --Sreejith K (talk) 05:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I find a certain irony in a user saying, "Learn the rules buddy", and that same user later being defended as a newbie who didn't know the rules.
It is true, though, that Achayan is a relatively new user and does not know the rules. Owning a paper photograph is very different from owning the copyright to that photograph -- we frequently have new users claiming that because they own a paper photo of an ancestor, they can post it here.
The question, again, in this instance, is who actually owns the copyright to the photograph. Since it is very unusual for a photographer to transfer copyright when he sells paper or digital copies of the image, it is most likely that the copyright belongs to the photographer or his heirs and not, as claimed here, to User:Achayan.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you and that's exactly my point. User:Achayan is trying to say that he is the heir of the person in the photograph. He failed to make that point in the DR most probably because of his over confidence and ignorance. I do not have a reason to disbelieve him and so I support undeletion of this image at this point. --Sreejith K (talk) 11:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason to disbelieve him to be a heir of the person in the photo. But being the heir of a person shown in a photo is meaningless for the copyright on the photographic work. --Martin H. (talk) 20:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image should be a paid work of art and the owner of the photograph should be the one depicted in the photograph itself. Naturally, after his death, his heir holds the rights for the image. --Sreejith K (talk) 13:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What Sreejith told is the truth. At present the copyright of the photograph belongs to me. Please be kind enought to trust me and replace the photograph at the earliest. Achayan (talk) 17:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restored Assume Good Faith, per Sreejith K. and Achayan. Yann (talk) 21:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

Undeletion Request: File:J-c-bose-school-of-engineering.jpg[edit]

Hello,

I sent the following email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Please check if you need any further information.

Thanks --Partha89 (talk) 05:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

===========================================================

I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of WORK File:J-c-bose-school-of-engineering.jpg.

I agree to publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY)".

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

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

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

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


22nd April, 2011 Partha Roy

Restored Yann (talk) 21:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Murghab River[edit]

  1. I created Category:Murghab River sometime in the last year or so.
  2. Recently another contributor created Category:Morghab River
  3. All the elements in the old category were manually moved to the new category, without any prior discussion.
  4. The contributor who created the new category, and moved all the elements from the old category to the new category, then placed a {{Delete}} on the old category, but didn't fill it in.
  5. I could have excised the empty delete tag. I now regret I didn't. Instead I populated the template, and explained the situation in Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Murghab River.
  6. On April 21 an administrator deleted Category:Murghab River, because the category was empty.
  7. On April 22 I left this note on that administrator's talk page. They reverted their first deletion.
  8. On April 25 another administrator deleted Category:Murghab River, again, simply because the category was empty -- without actually reading the discussion.

As I wrote on the discussion page, and as I wrote on the first administrator's talk page, I think the other possible transliterations should redirect to whichever name we decide is the base name.

As I wrote on the first administrator's talk page, there are no standards for tranliterating Afghan names. Here is a google search of all Afghan government sites site:gov.af "Morghab River" OR "Murghab River" OR "Murgab River" OR "Morgab River". Just three hits from Afghan government sites -- all three use the original name, "Murghab River". Geo Swan (talk) 01:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Support, it makes perfect sense to have a redirect in this case, as users are likely to use both spellings. I'm not sure which one should be the category and which one should be the redirect though; your findings on the government website make a strong case in favor of Murghab River, but on the other hand we tend to follow en.wp's conventions, and the article there is called Morghab River. Either way, this category should be undeleted. –Tryphon☂ 10:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's more complicated -- maybe calls for flipping a coin. en:Morghab River (Afghanistan) has a hatnote pointing to en:Murghab River (Tajikistan) which begins in Afghanistan. So there are two rivers with the name in Afghanistan. Also, although the article title is "Morghab", the article uses "Murghab" consistently throughout -- the title spelling does not appear in the body of the article.
So, I think we ought to undelete Category:Murghab River and redirect it to Category:Morghab River. Since it seems to be a tossup, I make that choice on the grounds of pure expediency -- it's the slightly easier of the two possibilities.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine with me. If Geo Swan agrees also, I think we should go ahead and do that. –Tryphon☂ 08:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lessons to be learned here, in my opinion.
  1. I think the individual who created Category:Morghab River erred.
    1. I think they erred in manually copying all the contents from the earlier category, Category:Murghab River. After finding there was already a category they should have sought others opinions as to whether the new category deserved pride of place over the old one.
    2. I think they erred in not using {{Category redirect}}.
  2. I think both the first and second administrators to delete Category:Murghab River erred.
    1. I think they erred in deleting the category simply because it was empty.
    2. I think they erred in deleting the category without taking the time to read the discussion. No one supported deletion in the discussion.
  3. In retrospect maybe I should have simply excised the incomplete discussion. I thought it would be questionable to delete a discussion that I disagreed with.
Is it a toss-up? Well, no, I don't really think so. Since the Afghan government uses the "Murghab" not "Morghab" I think it should be the base name. Further, leaving the new name as the base name endorses the earlier mistakes. I think this would be an additional mistake. Geo Swan (talk) 16:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restored as per Tryphon, with {{Category redirect|Morghab River}}. Yann (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pirate Party of Canada signet.svg[edit]

Recently an administrator has determined that the logo for the Pirate Party of Canada is simple enough for inclusion on the commons, in the act of closing the Commons:Deletion requests/File:PPoC logo sge sm.png discussion as keep. If others agree that this logo can be allowed on the commons, I request that File:Pirate Party of Canada signet.svg be undeleted, as that was just the logo, without the text, and of a higher quality than can be found on the organization's website. Thanks, 117Avenue (talk) 07:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well the Pirate Party of Canada itself states, talking about their logo, that the use of these files is not restricted by copyright [2]. So  support. –Tryphon☂ 08:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I'm not convinced that File:PPoC logo sge sm.png is, in fact, PD-textlogo (i.e. the middle portion). But, in addition to what Tryphon has said, the entire party website is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0. The organization appears to be happy to freely license its intellectual property. So both the files would appear to be fine. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment The deletion was based on OTRS 2011040610006973. What was written in that OTRS? I've invited the deleting admin to the discussion. Trycatch (talk) 22:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I'm not convinced File:PPoC logo sge sm.png is a text logo either. Maybe you could argue the center portion is de minimus. But this logo up for undeletion includes only the center portion and is definitely not a text logo. Regarding the OTRS ticket, we received an email from Mike Bleskie, the deputy leader of the Pirate Party of Canada (from the pirateparty.ca domain) stating that images of directors of the Pirate Party of Canada are to be considered as licensed under Creative Commons NC-BY-SA unless stated otherwise by the subject of the photo themselves, or by the photographer of the image. That applied to File:Mikkel-paulson.jpg and File:Mikkel-times-square.jpg, where the subject stated otherwise. But Mike Bleskie went on to state that all versions of the Pirate Party of Canada logo are licensed under that same (noncommercial) license, with absolutely no exceptions to be made unless the Federal Council of the PPCA rules otherwise. The license on their site is indeed CC-BY-SA, but it may only apply to the text content. The source of the file was listed as http://wiki.pirateparty.ca/index.php/Branding_Guide , but we can see in the history of it that the disclaimer that the files may be free of copyright restrictions was added by Mikkel Paulson, the web developer. So do we trust the web developer or the deputy leader? I had sent an email back to Mike Bleskie asking for clarification or an exception for the logos but never heard back. – Adrignola talk 23:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The seal looks like {{PD-ineligible}} to me. There's a couple of lines, a couple of arcs, and the Canadian maple leaf silhouette. Nothing copyrightable there. Powers (talk) 13:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this going to be undeleted? 117Avenue (talk) 23:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restored as per Commons:Deletion requests/File:PPoC logo sge sm.png. Yann (talk) 21:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Julbert1980 photos[edit]

Please restore the following files:

Those files were uploaded and released into public domain by Julbert1980, which stated them to be his own work and filling the attribution field with Julien Bertrand. Notwithstanding, they were all marked as "lacking source/permission" due to doubts by HighContrast that Julbert and Julien Bertrand are the same person. I don't understand those doubts, if he said the photos were "own work", and the author was Julien Bertrand, that's because he is Julien Bertrand, and it does not take much imagination to associate Julbert with Julian Bertrand. As I believe they were all marked and deleted by mistake, I'm asking for their undeletion.-- Darwin Ahoy! 08:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Support I look at image description and it is not clear to me why they were deleted--Jarekt (talk) 11:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose without OTRS. It is true that the named author, Julien Bertrand, is probably the uploader, User:Julbert1980, but we see many cases where users appropriate the name of an author in order to evade our rules. Darwin put a note on User:Julbert1980's talk page in February, warning him that he must fix the problem, but Julbert1980 took no action in response. These are not ancient history -- they were all uploaded this year. Rather than simply undeleting these on the assumption that the two people are the same, I think we should insist on an OTRS e-mail from UserJulbert1980.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"he must fix the problem" - what problem? It said "source: own work". Is this a new policy or ?? Curious; my own uploads regularly have my real name spelled out in exif. Do I also need to explain how N, V, and O blend into a TLA ?? NVO (talk) 14:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support, also other things make me think that an OTRS ticket will not show any information that we not know already: the uploader is the photographer. I very often agree with the editor who tagged this files, but in this case I recommend to have a second look and to reconsider if the tagging was necessary. --Martin H. (talk) 13:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any evidence that "Julian Bertrand" is the same person as User:Julbert1980? If yes, restoring those files would be correct. If not theuy should stay deleted. --High Contrast (talk) 15:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the same problem I run into when people get annoyed that I ask for Flickr licenses to be changed rather than emailing OTRS directly. A similar email address or a filled-in value for a name that is the same as the Flickr user's isn't definitive proof that they are the same. If only the uploader had used [[User:Julbert1980|Julian Bertrand]] for the author, this would be more clear. – Adrignola talk 15:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. --High Contrast (talk) 15:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Looking at the french userpage and the uploads I would say that to 99% everything is okay with those files. Of course there is a 1% chance that it is some kind of fraud and the user deliberately put in the name of someone else but in this case... its just very, very unlikely. We also have: a correct 'own work' and also a PD-self which again is an indication for own work. cheers, Amada44  talk to me 15:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think I am mostly put off by the fact that these are recent uploads, yet despite a personal note on his talk page three months ago and the deletion of all the files, he has not come to us and said, "Yes, these are mine, User:Julbert1980 is Julian Bertrand".
But, in honesty, I don't whether that is realistic suspicion or just being pissed off at a user. So, given the strength of support here, I withdraw my oppose.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support This seems an unexperienced User (no categorisations, no editions on commons after uploading, no reply on its user pages on commons) he problably has uploaded starting from the french wikipedia, where he has classified himself as a wikipedia pohotographer. Best is to keep all images which show the same camera on the metadata as are on some other files of this user.--Havang(nl) (talk) 19:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support it's slightly absurd to be argueing about how to proove whether julbert1980 & julian bertrand are the same person, as claimed, or not. unless someone here actually has proof that the user is lying, then short of sending a team of agents to investigate, or demanding that julbert1980 provide us with personal ID, we are never going to know for certain. (& btw otrs is not a magic bullet!) the basic/minimum necessary file info was provided by the uploader, whether or not they put it all in the "right boxes". unless someone has any actual proof of copyvio, or at least a significant history of prooven copyvio by this user, the deletions should never have happened. commons has done all reasonable "due dilligence" on this & any remaining "liability" would be on the uploader, & not commons.Lx 121 (talk) 07:19, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support This appears fundemental to how Commons operates, we allow (if not encourage) people to use psuedonyms to upload files and assert ownership & copyright and to license their images without a shred of proof. Even if they use their real names, there is still not a shred of proof, there is just an assertion of copyright. Whether this is a good idea is a different matter, but it is part of the open, 'everyone can contribute, even anonymously' philosophy of these wiki projects. If we allow doubt in any user's mind to be sufficient reason to count as "significant doubt" then the system of tagging images with 'no permission' and deleting them if there is no response simply means that once users become inactive here (knocked over by a bus, move on to better pastures), their images are vulnerable to this sort of deletion. Any images (including mine) that have no other evidence of authorship (eg OTRS) will eventually get deleted under a system of 'accept the license until someone challeges it'. I think we have to be very specific about what "significant doubt" means otherwise this process is just used as a fast track, back door, deletion process. --Tony Wills (talk) 21:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted. Per consensus above, "Julian Bertrand" is close enough to "Julbert1980". What proof do we have that anyone matches their user ID? Wknight94 talk 13:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Placa av sto amaro.jpg[edit]

Please restore this file if possible. Granted, the uploader has an appalling record at uploading copyvios as "own work", and this is most certainly not his own work as well, but if this is a plaque as the others he has uploaded I don't believe it to be copyright protected.-- Darwin Ahoy! 11:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restored {{PD-textlogo}} Yann (talk) 10:53, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Isaak Feuerring.jpg[edit]

Hi, this file should be undeleted since Israeli law says that after 50 years of publication, no matter who is the author it is in the PD. This was taken between 1930-1938, 50 years have past. matanya • talk 17:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Question I don't oppose this request, but ask -- are we sure this work was first published in Israel? Or, perhaps, Germany, before he emigrated? (We are told that he was German-Israeli).      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes we are sure it is from Israel. Was taken in his Kibbutz in Israel and is shown in the kibbutz archive. matanya • talk 22:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Support (as the user who requested the deletion). I think (cannot see the file's desc. page ) I have been fooled by the bolding of the completely irrelevant line in {{PD-Israel}}. The 70 year pma are not relevant for any photo here in Commons with this template. The section paragraph is the most relevant one: "51st year after the creation of the photograph" before 2008. --Saibo (Δ) 22:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restored per {{PD-Israel}} as in this case publication date and authorship do not matter – relevant is only that the photograph was taken in Israel more than 50 years ago. In consequence, this is free in Israel and in the United States (as supposedly no copyright was claimed there) but probably not in some other countries which respect pma 70 or a similar rule. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Otto Perez Molina 2011.jpg[edit]

OTRS just came in (#2011060210014486), please undelete so I can tag it as OTRS received. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted per King of Hearts, with OTRS pending. --Túrelio (talk) 06:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:ChristosSiametis.jpg, File:48gogreen logo.jpg, File:Francesco Vitali.jpg[edit]

Hello, 

  I request to undelete these files 
  1) ChristosSiametis.jpg
  2) 48gogreen logo.jpg
  3) Francesco Vitali.jpg

these file were deleted because of copyright violation. but now I've talked with owner of these files and they are sending OTRS permission mail very soon.

Thank you in advance.

Apaleja (talk) 06:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - OTRS can undelete them when they receive the email. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually I had taken care of them in OTRS ticket 2011052510006293 but hadn't seen this request here. So it actually has been done. – Adrignola talk 15:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

A whole host of penises[edit]

User FAP has for the past month been trying to get a lot of penises deleted. In some cases I accept there were bad quality images, but these are not, these are all GOOD quality photos, clear, well-angled, a variety of poses of the same penis to allow people easy comparison. The nominating/deleting reason was "Uninteresting photography. Abundant pictures of the same penis. Best alternatives. Commons isn't a porn blog", which I dispute thusly: Not all photos are interesting to everyone; many photos of the same thing from different angles is a GOOD thing; these were good images; and yes, but it's not a train blog either and yet I've managed to upload ~2000 photos of the things. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose to undelete. We have over 400 photos in category:Human penis and deleted photos is not a best illustrations. Some are near-duplicates. Yes, Commons is not sensored, but Commons is not an amateur porno hosting also. I made two DR nominations today: photos of penis is rather blurred. I can't see any support vote to all this photos during week of DR nomination, only  Delete -- George Chernilevsky talk 14:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please explain why you think 400 images is excessive? How many images of sports figures do we have? Which topic is more important for the continunation of the human race -- sports or human sexuality? When we have more images related to human sexuality than we do of images related to sports, I will consider arguments like yours that we already have enough images. Geo Swan (talk) 21:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Those images are just of that "Hey, look at my dick"-style. The existing hundres of penises easily match up with those few deleted ones. "Censor" is no valid argument, more precisely a pseudo argument, as everyone could claim every deleted picture of any style as "censorship", so we could get rid of deletion requests anyway.
Finally we are coming to: We need comparative photos of one penis from many angles which is ridiculous, as it would require to upload tons of penises to meet that criterium (360° x 360°) If you want to see more dicks because you cannot imagine how a penis looks like (after those more 400 existing ones), go to youporn or gayporn or just look downside.
It is not that we have "only" a single picture which was deleted, so a useless "keep it" discussion. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a mathematician; even if you insist on taking it literally, it's 2π x 2π. It's entirely reasonable to want to see how one penis looks like in different conditions, without having to worry about differences between penises. Your sexist comment that they should "just look downside" is beyond the pale, in my opinion.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a mathematician Don't think so, 4π² would be ~40, far too less. But besideds, is it entirely reasonable to assume that under 400 pictures of penises you wouldn't find the right angle??? Unfortunately, nowadays it is so hard to figure out how a dick is looking like...--Yikrazuul (talk) 18:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See w:radians, the only real way to measure angles.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And how many angles are possible in a 3D enviroment? Answer: ∞ (w:Real number. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly . 360° around and 180° around () and you have any axis. (see cylindrical projection). Anyways a poor demonstration of mathematical knowledge. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 21:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also a mathematician, and it wouldn't be , it would be as you need only work between and in the second angular parameter. But yes, it's actually infinity. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Going back to the actual topic, no one here but you has mentioned censorship. I'm simply saying that these are good quality photos which were deleted on the grounds of "oh we have lots of those already". I'd like to see that go through with pictures of the Eiffel Tower, or the Statue of Liberty, or in fact any subject except sexual ones. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose This user has confused Wikimedia Commons with a personal porn gallery. What will you become if everyone do it ? Florent Pécassou (talk) 20:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's amazing we have any pictures of human genitalia on Commons, given the inevitable abuse that users will heap upon them. In any case, what will Commons become if everyone uploaded pictures of the Statue of Liberty is not a reason to delete pictures of the Statue of Liberty.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • We have only 100 photos of the Statue of Liberty, whereas above 400 of penises, so, no, that is not a good comparison. --Yikrazuul (talk) 09:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually according to CatScan there are 517, and over 1000 photos of the Eiffel Tower. Will you now support deleting photos of the Statue or the Tower for being too similar? I further note that while the Statue is one thing, unchanging, there are 3.5 BILLION human penises in the world, all different. And they change! -mattbuck (Talk) 09:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • So, should we start to open a worldwide campaign "Upload a set of images of your penis on commons, as we have only >400 pictures"? --Yikrazuul (talk) 09:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • No, I'm not saying that at all. My general argument is that these particular photos are good photos. My specific argument here is that you cannot claim that we shouldn't delete photos of the Statue of Liberty because there are only 100 compared to 400 penises when there are actually more than 500 pictures of the Statue. Would you support deleting some photos of the Statue of Liberty on grounds of being too similar? Or of the Eiffel Tower? There are over 1000 photos of that according to CatScan. If you hold that 400 photos of the human penis, which comes in all shapes and sizes, is too many; then you cannot argue that 500 pictures of something fixed and unchanging is not enough. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • User:Yikrazuul, I suggest you consider the relative importance of human sexuality and of the Statue of Liberty. If, for the sake of argument, all coverage of the Statue of Liberty were excised from the commons, from all the other wikimedia foundation projects, and every other book, movie, video, song, life would go on essentially the same as now. Excision of all coverage of human sexuality would be a disaster. We live in a world were sexually transmitted diseases cause hundreds of millions of deaths per year, where these deaths, and the costs of medical care leading up to them, and the loss of productive workers costs a bundle, trillions of dollar I would guess. We live in a world where a large number of babies die at birth, a large number of mothers die in pregnancy or in childbirth, in large part due to a lack of sexual education. Geo Swan (talk) 21:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support images were wrongly deleted, for spurious rationale, & with inadequate debate, as part of a no-penis deletion nom "spree" by one user User:FAP. many of the reasons given for the deletions were invalid, no basis in commons policy. same "rationale" was cut & pasted across multiple noms, with no real consideration of the files' individual merits Lx 121 (talk) 07:09, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    We donna have a so called "no-penis" deletion agenda, a reason for deletion cannot be "invalid", and "individual merits" of self-shot dicks is highly questionable, as commons is not a private web host for free, hence it is a basis in comons policy. --Yikrazuul (talk) 09:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    A reason for deletion is invalid if it goes against policy. I accept that many of the photos deleted were just plain rubbish, and so I didn't request undeletion of those. But these are high quality photos, and I think they have merit as a group. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If these are all of the same person, I  Oppose undeletion of File:Young indian boy penis.JPG, and possibly all of them. Obviously it can't be a young boy and also a man. Blatant lies in filenames/descriptions of files strongly suggests bad faith. Any hint of bad faith in nude/sexual uploads should be treated very cautiously. Keeping this file reduces our credibility, and given that we have alternatives, I think it should stay deleted. --99of9 (talk) 10:57, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The concept of "young boy" can extend into the 20s, especially if you are not an English native speaker. The subject of that particular photograph seems to be in the late teens or early twenties.-- Darwin Ahoy! 11:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Boy, maybe. Young boy, not so much. --99of9 (talk) 12:57, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you translate it literally to other languages, you'll get something as "jeune garçon" in French, "rapaz jovem" in Portuguese, "chico jueven" in Spanish. I can tell you that all those could perfectly apply to someone in his 20s. I'm well in my 30s, and occasionally I'm still addressed in such a way, especially by the proverbial matron. In any case, if you have actually seen File:Young indian boy penis.JPG (you still can, it's on Google's cache), saying it's a picture of a child would get anyone rolling on the floor laughing their guts out.-- Darwin Ahoy! 22:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support We should not be deleting good quality photographs. This may not be a medical database but there are many benefits to having a wide variety of quality shots. Why would we want more than 400 photos of penes? The same reason we would want more that 400 shots of any other body part or area. Automatically interpreting close up shots of body parts as pornography is ridiculous and would lead to mass deletion of photographs of women's chests while we may retain mass photos of children and men's torsos. Fæ (talk) 08:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support per mattbuck, A socket-puppet has requested this pictures for deletion and they was deleted without discuss. No need to discuss the undeletion --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support undeletion -- the world needs the commons to host a large collection of all kinds of images related to human sexuality. We need a large number of images of the bodies of expectant mothers -- expectant mothers of all sizes, ethnic groups, ages, health, and we need multiple images of these mothers at all stages of the pregnancy, for the public health reasons I offered above. Similarly, the world needs a wide range of images of penises, from all kinds of ethnic groups, of all sizes, from individuals representing all spectrums of health, age, and states of excitement. Human sexuality is important, and understanding human sexuality requires large collections. No offense but, in my opinion, thinking a small number of images are sufficient, shows a lack of understanding of the cost of insufficient education on human sexuality, as I explained above. I don't see any valid reason offered for the deletion of these images. Geo Swan (talk) 21:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose This is ridiculous, are we collecting pics of male genitals for every country. Keep 'em deleted unless there is a better rationale for what use they might have. Theo10011 (talk) 14:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restored per above discussion. Béria Lima msg 14:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mein-Steifer-Penis.JPG[edit]

Another good quality penis image deleted, although I accept this one is a bit strange, but still, no good reason for deletion. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Support Restore it as the others above. Some fishy action goes going on. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 15:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Support image was wrongly deleted, for spurious rationale, & with inadequate debate, as part of a no-penis deletion nom "spree" by one user User:FAP. reasons given for the deletion were invalid, no basis in commons policy Lx 121 (talk) 07:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support per mattbuck, A socket-puppet has requested this pictures for deletion and they was deleted without discuss. No need to discuss the undeletion --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Ronald Reagan, not a friend to the environment, used to say "If you have seen one Redwood you have seen them all." Some contributors here express a similar attitude towards images related to human sexuality -- "If you have seen one woodie you have seen them all." It seems to me that those contributors are forgetting -- or ignoring -- how incredibly important a proper understanding of human sexuality is. There is a huge public health concern here. We live in a world with millions of unnecessary deaths due to lack of understanding of how sexually transmitted disease risks. We live in a world with millions of unnecessary deaths due to inadequate prenatal education. I urge those who weigh in on these discussions to abandon the argument we already have enough images related to human sexuality. Human sexuality is more important than sports. Yet we have all kinds of images related to sports. Geo Swan (talk) 15:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not undeleted - adds nothing educational so out of scope - Jcb (talk) 21:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

Ellen Harvey images[edit]

OTRS received for:

King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you insert the number of the ticket here? So we can also check it and insert as the undelete reason_ Thanks! Béria Lima msg 14:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ticket 2011060610010562 appears to be the one. – Adrignola talk 14:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Tabercil (talk) 23:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Southeast Asia Treaty Organization[edit]

Not sure why Category:Southeast Asia Treaty Organization was deleted -- accidentally part of a larger purge? -- but it has several images and seems like a completely valid category. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done - I deleted it as part of a MAJOR purge of a catspammer who created I think a couple of thousand categories. To give you an idea of the level of detail we're talking about, a single village in Lancashire, for which we had about 3 images, ended up with about 40 different subcategories, and a rail crash of which we have 2 photos ended up categorised in "derailments in (village)" < "rail accidents in (village)" < "rail accidents in (local area)" < "rail accidents in (area of lancashire)" < "rail accidents in lancashire", when we had no other media for rail accidents in Lancashire. I set NUKE to it and the sheer volume caused it to stall several times. I did go back through and undelete some categories which looked possibly valid, I obviously missed this one. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request for undeletes so as to properly add "own" as source and "PD-self" as license template[edit]

File:RebeccaElson1987.jpg
File:RichardGarwin1980.jpg
File:NeilTurok1990.jpg
File:GeorgeBField1987.jpg
File:CecilHowardGreenMid1980s.jpg
File:JamesMBardeen1980.jpg

These files were deleted because not sourced properly. However, my intent was to properly source them as "{ {own} }" with licensing template "{ {PD-self} }". (Sorry, I don't know how to enter literal braces here without the extraneous space!)

Could an administrator undelete the files, so that I can add source and license info? Thanks!

Similar problem with File:William_H._Press_portrait_2009.jpg , although it will have a different source and rights template when fixed.

ServiceAT (talk) 20:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All of the files except the last one already had you claiming they were your own work. But User:Mmxx marked them as missing source information because it was not believed that they were your own work. So your statement to mark them as your own means nothing will change from how they were when they were deleted. And the last one was marked as missing permission. If you follow the instructions at Commons:OTRS the file can be restored, should sufficient evidence be provided to show that the actual photographer consents to a release under an allowed license. – Adrignola talk 20:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the interests of openness and transparency could one of you explain the reason(s) why the uploader's {{Own}} was suspect? Geo Swan (talk) 22:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You'll have to ask Mmxx why the tag was applied. I did not delete them either. – Adrignola talk 23:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Missing source information should mean just that, not that one disbelieves the source information. That should be a copyvio or a full DR.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how it's done in practice. Files are tagged as lacking permission because it's believed they don't have permission. Likewise files are tagged as lacking the source because it's believed they do not have correct source information. See File:Mathijseind.PNG, File:Nspmdrncanals.jpg, File:J3xx.jpg, File:Al nadimmm.jpg, File:Calvicie.jpg, File:CHORD.jpg, File:Israel Ori statue in Jermuk.jpg, File:4 Faces Of Change.jpg, File:97-Mundo-misterio2.jpg, File:Aguaraguasu.JPG, File:LA.jpg. These files each have been tagged by different users, including several admins, and all state "own work" and are a sampling of the many in the "no source" categories. Don't have a source to have the form validate by filling in all fields? Just pick "It is entirely my own work" from Commons:Upload. – Adrignola talk 23:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While the people tagging them may be correct, unless the "own work" claims are obviously wrong, they should usually go through a regular DR in my opinion. It documents the reasons so much better. One of them (the Ori statue) is indeed a copyvio (I just marked it), but it's best to find actual sources before speedy deleting things, unless it is basically definite that it is not the uploader's work (or derivative of another). Simple suspicions that "own work" is incorrect should be DRs; I agree with Prosfilaes there. And they could well be subject to undeletion for that, if only to open such a regular DR. "I suspect a copyvio" is not a speedy deletion reason, from what I can see, and that is what tagging things that way amounts to (even if the suspicions are likely correct). Carl Lindberg (talk) 11:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I usually mark files which are obviously (to me) not own work as no source, on the assumption that simply tagging them is more or less equivalent as manually removing the "own work" claim and then tag as no source, but you are right in saying that it is not good practice. I find those tags very useful, but I don't feel very comfortable at all with them being used as an undercover way to speedy delete. However, IMO, the problem is not so much in the tags, but more in the revision procedure that should optimally follow it, but which unfortunately generally does not exist at all apart from the personal judgement of the administrator occasionally cleaning those categories.-- Darwin Ahoy! 11:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly the reason why it's important to use DRs for such cases. There is almost no real community review on the no source deletion pipeline (especially if you are both tagger and reviewing administrator in the same person), a lot of completely fine pictures get deleted as "no source" with little or no analysis at all (e.g. Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2011-06#Julbert1980 photos). Trycatch (talk) 14:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Considering the username of the uploader (ServiceAT) and the names used as author (A.T. Service & Sara L. Press) and quality of the images which are apparently scans of photographs, I doubted that they are own works by uploader. the user claim that these are scans of printed photographs taken by themselves using a 35mm film camera and photographs are taken between 1980 to 1990 (except the one which doesn't belong to uploader). perhaps the uploader can make the situation more clear by explaining about their relation with photographed persons and of course meaning of their username (A.T. Service).   ■ MMXX  talk  09:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support undeletion. Photographs were properly tagged and described, there was no reason for plastering no source template on them whatsoever. There were no digital cameras on the consumer market of 1980s, a lot of persons slightly older than very young have numerous negatives and prints from 1980s, 1990s and early 2000s, and you can't transfer films and prints over the Internet Protocol unless you have scanned them. So I fail to see what is so suspicious with scanning. And really, place no source template on a picture on June 7 and delete it by yourself on June 8? No good. Trycatch (talk) 14:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, I'm a newbie here, so I am happy to learn from this discussion and contribute additional information. The origin of these pictures is that I am or was professionally acquainted with all the subjects at the time of the photos, took the pictures myself with a 35mm film camera in the years indicated (between 1980 and 1990) and recently had them scanned (along with many hundreds of other personal photos). These pictures are cropped from the original scans, by me. In any possible copyright sense, I am the owner of these photos. All of the pictures were taken in public places or at public functions, and all of the people pictured are (within the meaning of U.S. law, at least) limited public figures -- meaning that their images can be used in connection with their professional biographies (as Wikipedia page). As I say, I'm a newbie, but I am just totally mystified as to what the fuss is about. I didn't think it was supposed to be so hard to contribute to improving Wikipedia content, but apparently it is. I await your decision on this.

ServiceAT (talk) 17:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Due to its own nature, in Commons we are much more wary about copyright than in other Wikimedia projects, that's why all the fuss. Being a professional photographer, maybe you can understand such wariness. But it only happens while there is reasonable suspicion of copyfraud, once you became a trusted user you are generally spared all those suspicions and troubles in uploading own work.-- Darwin Ahoy! 17:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have undeleted the images based on support above and the uploader's explanation. If it is still doubtful a full deletion request can be made. The last one needs OTRS confirmation. – Adrignola talk 17:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closed, undeleted by Adrignola. --Martin H. (talk) 15:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Defunct international organizations[edit]

Cool (on the SEATO category). ;-) Not surprising there would be some collateral damage with something like that. So, after undeleting that one, it appears the parent cat Category:Defunct international organizations is another which could be undeleted. No idea if there are further parents but that may be it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • undelete, however, it needs clarification: is it about top-rank organizations of countries (SEATO, Warsaw Treaty etc.) or just about any cross-national organizations (sports, academia, hobbyists etc.)? NVO (talk) 07:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • At the moment it appears to have three subcats -- SEATO, CSTO, and the Warsaw Pact. This was an existing category that looks like it got accidentally included in a purge (see the SEATO undeletion above). Or, rather, a legitimate category made by someone who made a boatload of unnecessary ones, and it was hard to find the good ones. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closed, undeleted. --Martin H. (talk) 15:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:6d9d0fbaef2ddc34d8675258cd10c44c.jpg[edit]

The file was deleted after this request. Nomination clearly erroneous. Please undelete this file. Author was uploaded this picture under free license. it give all permission. Before this the author has exhibited the picture for the contest.русский The fact that this image has participated in the contest for talisman for Olympic Games in Sochi in 2014 and therefore was present in the gallery on the site selection mascots does not change anything. This picture was only the leader of online voting, and it is interesting, russian media covered this story, but it has not passed the selection and it did not enter top ten pretenders, which were chosen by the jury. it is not official talisman, and it will never become in future. What permission is needed? Author was uploaded this picture under free license, and author solved with a picture to do anything. --188.123.248.44 22:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The file name 6d9d0fbaef2ddc34d8675258cd10c44c.jp looks like it was generated by some website. Therefore I doubt that this is the original author who uploaded their own creation with nonsense title like "6d9d0fbaef2ddc34d8675258cd10c44c.jp". According to the filename its a copy from some website and an original author would not need to copy their own work from other websites but can diretly upload it from their own computer. The filename of an upload directly from the creators computer may also not mean something but it will not be the files hash sum (or something like that). I dont believe that the uploader is the copyright holder. --Martin H. (talk) 16:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
you obviously have found copies of images from Wiki, given that the resolution in Wiki is the largest, then obviously this is the original file. why it has strange name, i do not know, but all that is found on your link is more recent copies of popular image. if the author would have been outraged by uploading image to Wikipedia, he may be noted that in his last post about this picture in his blogрусский, which by the way, he notes that in the Russian Wikipedia says about his work is not quite correct information. that is, he knows, because that time the picture was already loaded, and illustrated the article about itself. and gives at the end of the post the link to his work a vector format for all who want to have. --188.123.248.44 20:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. – Adrignola talk 21:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

Latvian lats[edit]

As can be observed in here several images of banknotes (and possibly other images showing Latvian lat as well) were deleted apperently as in case of rubles above on pretext that Latvian copyright law states that copyright of lats is owned by Latvian Bank and any reproduction is forbiden. However the article in question was introduced in 2004 (most designs for Latvian money were in cirrculation well before that date) and untill then the law clearly stated that banknotes are in public domain. Applying this law to reproductions of pre-2004 money is against legal principle that laws should not be applied retroactively ~~Xil (talk) 19:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're not talking about the same files as referenced above, you should make a list of which files exactly are concerned by this request. Thanks. –Tryphon☂ 21:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Any files depicting Latvian lat coins and bancnotes designed before 2004 are in public domain, including as I pointed out, those that were used to ilustrate w:en:Latvian lats:
Note that some of the image names seem to indicate post 2004 date, however I don`t have the means to check if this is indeed so (besides these bancnotes would differ only with having different year of issue printed on them, not sure if this alone is reason to have different copyright - the lates changes to general design of banknotes were made in 2001, I believe). In any case I wish to make sure that if somebody now uploads versions issued prior to 2004 these won`t be deleted. Also I want to point out that there seems to be an error in translations of Latvian copyright laws - where in English it says banknotes, in Latvian it says naudas zīmes, naudas zīmes ought to mean both banknotes and coins, as evident by the fact that legal documents regulating design of naudas zīmes all concern both ~~Xil (talk) 21:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per e-mail I mentioned in discussion above the Bank of Latvia says they want banknotes to be watermarked with PARAUGS (sample) as per these rules. I asked the user to e-mail them back asking about retroactive application of law and if past 2004 money would be considered okay to publish if images conform to these rules ~~Xil (talk) 20:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should be  On hold - I am not opposed to this undelete at a later date, I just think it slightly premature. The issue inculding these comments, is currently being addressed here. Before we undelete these images I think several things need to be worked out.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 13:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 I withdraw my nomination the previous images probably don`t have watermarks bank is requesting ~~Xil (talk) 10:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Withdrawn by nominator. – Adrignola talk 21:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Korpilahti bell tower.png[edit]

Please restore the image File:Korpilahti bell tower.png, for which the photographer has specifically provided permission to contribute to Wikimedia Commons. See correspondence attached. — Objectivesea (talk) 02:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From: Jukka Joutsi [redacted] Date: December 13, 2010 10:44:10 PM PST (CA) To: Erik Pedersen <xxxx@xxxx.xx> Subject: Jukka Joutsi - here's the original bell tower photo of the Korpilahti church, Finland

Hello Here's enclosed the asked, original bell tower photo of the Korpilahti church, Finland.

The use of the photo is OK in this circumstance with the credit given to the photographer.

Jukka Joutsi

Original Message -----

From: Erik Pedersen To: [redacted] Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2010 3:15 AM Subject: Your photograph of Korpilahti

Dear Jukko Joutsi,

I have made Wikipedia pages for several Finnish churches (for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taulumäki Church, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Cross_Church_(Hattula,_Finland) and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pielisensuu_Church) and I am currently putting together a Wikipedia page for Korpilahti Church.

I see that you have a nice picture of the bell tower of the Korpilahti Church (http://www.jukkajoutsi.com/aapa493.jpg, 436px × 577px) on your web page at http://www.jukkajoutsi.com/korpilahti.html. I would very much like to include this photograph to help illustrate the article I am writing. Images used on Wikipedia, however, must be donated to the Wikimedia Commons (that is, they must not have a copyright which restricts the use of the photographs), but the Commons will include a statement that gives attribution credit to the photographer. See http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Creative_Commons_Attribution-Share_Alike_3.0_Unported_-lisenssiehdot.

Would you be willing to contribute this photo to Wikimedia Commons for use on Wikipedia? If so, it is possible that you have a larger, higher-resolution version of the image. Although the Wikipedia page will probably only use the image at about half the size at which you posted it (that is, 218 pixels by 288 pixels), Wikimedia Commons prefers to receive images of the highest possible resolution.

Please let me know if you approve of my suggestion, and if you do, please send a high-resolution version. Of course, if you have plans to market the photograph commercially or have assigned the copyright to someone else already, please disregard this request. We would never use the image without your permission.

Kind regards, Erik Pedersen

http://www.jukkajoutsi.com/laukaafutis.htmlhttp://www.jukkajoutsi.com/laukaafutis.html

Please follow the instructions at COM:OTRS. We have careful procedures for such things that help us ensure no one just makes up correspondence and claims it to be authentic. Powers (talk) 15:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be handled via OTRS. – Adrignola talk 21:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:CMCLagerhuelsen.jpg[edit]

The e-mail giving the license has in 2006 not been sent to OTRS, but was posted in the license paragraph of the file itself. This procedure was considered okay at that time as can be studied on my discussion page. I am asking now to undelete the file. In case it should be necessary I will try to get this mail sent to permission.commons. Okay? --Leumar01 (talk) 07:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Support. However, you should sent the original permission to OTRS anyway. --Túrelio (talk) 07:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will do so next week and for other files with the same situation as well. --Leumar01 (talk) 11:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The corresponding mail has been sent to permission a few minuntes ago. --Leumar01 (talk) 12:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On May 23rd permissions-de(at)wikipedia.org has confirmed the income of the license for this picture file with ticket# 2011052310006377. Can please somebody restore the file on the basis of the sent license? Thanks in advance! --Leumar01 (talk) 13:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for restoring it! --Leumar01 (talk) 12:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was handled through OTRS. – Adrignola talk 21:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File: Manuel Rego.jpg[edit]

I would like to have this picture back. I have the family´s permission to post it.

thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ensambletamiris (talk • contribs) 14:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Then send this permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org and refer to File: Manuel Rego.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 14:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note, please, that the permission must come from the photographer -- not simply someone who owns a copy of the picture. If the family member who gave you permission took the picture, that will be fine, but if not, you must get permission from the photographer.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be handled through OTRS. – Adrignola talk 21:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Logo-Sencillo.png[edit]

Hello,

I hereby confirm that I work for Café Britt Corporation and have full permission to upload the logo. My contact info within the company:

fvalverde@cafebritt.com

Image undelition request: File:Logo-Sencillo.png

Thank You. --Felivalverde (talk) 16:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While this might be simple enough to qualify for PD-ineligible, the best thing is if you will please follow the procedure at Commons:OTRS and send permission from fvalverde@cafebritt.com.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be resolved through OTRS. – Adrignola talk 21:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Ruševine u Ravnom 0b4.jpg[edit]

Speedy deleted in violation of Commons:Deletion_policy. Log reads "‎(Out of project scope: Promotional content)" --  Docu  at 12:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC) (edited)[reply]

 Oppose The log is a little misleading -- the image is from http://www.hercegovina.info/vijesti/hercegovina/foto-prica-opcina-ravno.
Google and I don't read Bosnian, but "© Hercegovina.info Internet portal" appears at the bottom of the gallery page there. It was tagged for no permission on April 21, which seems to be correct and deleted on May 10, which is past the seven days allowed for no permission. The uploader, User:Quahadi, who is an Admin, was properly notified of the problem with this image and nine others.
So, it looks like a righteous deletion to me. Am I missing something?     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I had a look at one of the other pics and it had an OTRS tag. --  Docu  at 12:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The OTRS tag on all the images, including the deleted one, is "OTRS received" with parameter 3, the "not sufficient" parameter. That is consistent with the information on the OTRS ticket.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:45, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there is some news at OTRS, either all need to go or this one restored. The stated reason is not a criterion for speedy deletion. --  Docu  at 13:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that they should be all deleted or none -- but I figured to wait a little while to give Quahadi a chance to respond. It's true that promo isn't a reason to speedy a file, but, as I said above, that's just the deleting Admin's picking a bad reason -- unless something turns up at OTRS, the images are missing permission and are well past the time limit.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The ticket is in the info-hr queue (Croatian) and no processing of tickets in that queue is occurring from communications received on the OTRS mailing list. So we're not holding up our end of the situation which is unfortunately seen in the backlogs across the board due to a shortage of volunteers. – Adrignola talk 15:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be handled via OTRS (eventually). – Adrignola talk 21:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:DannyBuday.jpg[edit]

File:DannyBuday.jpg

Please undelete this file as I personally took this photo 'on set' and own the rights and fully release them to all. Thank-you.

Status: Own work

Sincerely, --StaceyForrester (talk) 14:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC) Stacey Forrester[reply]

You originally stated the source of the image as "IMDb". If you are the photographer, in what capacity were you on the set? Powers (talk) 15:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Stacey,

Please send an email with a proper statement to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. To prove that you took the picture you can attach the original picture (including the EXIF) The picture will than be undeleted Best regards --Neozoon (talk) 23:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be handled via OTRS. – Adrignola talk 21:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Jocelyn_faubert.jpg[edit]

Dear Sir/Madam,

The copyright holder forgot to send the permission. They have been notified and will send permission.

--Swejap (talk) 08:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no file by that name. Yann (talk) 08:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it's about File:Jocelyn_faubert.jpg, so I fixed the header.-- Darwin Ahoy! 08:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done No OTRS email has been received to this day. Should one with sufficient information be received, the file can be restored. For now, no. – Adrignola talk 21:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

Febo Apolo photos[edit]

Please restore the following files, if possible:

these file were deleted because of copyright violation. But the Daher Hospital grants free copyright to use of that photo. Thank you! --Febo Apolo 21:55 2 June 2011 (UTC)

  •  Oppose - Febo Apolo is not telling the truth, and is completely shameless at that, even more having the guts to come here asking for support for his illegal activities. He has just posted a mixed rant of indignant rage and hollow menaces at my talk page, reaffirming his authorship of the photos even on the face of such egregious evidence of copyfraud. Then I got up my lazyness and searched for yet another photo, et voilá, Henrique Ans from Skyscrapercity joins the growing list of people whose works this user has uploaded here as his own. Most probably everything he uploaded was taken from somewhere else in complete disregard for the actual authorship and copyright status of the images. I would even go so far as to propose to speedy delete everything uploaded by him which source couldn't be ascertained, since they are most probably copyvios like the many others already found.-- Darwin Ahoy! 01:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Check also what Febo Apolo wrote here and in other files as well, exigently demanding the undeletion of the copyvios, which he still claims to be the author of: " "Exijo que voces devolvam a imagem tirada por mim. Pois eu sou o autor da imagem tirada.", and accusing Commons of copy theft (an accusation also personally directed to me at my talk page, BTW): "Vocês que estão violando os direitos autorais da imagem que me pertence.".-- Darwin Ahoy! 01:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Febo Apolo has now changed his story, but I still find it very doubtful, however. As can be seen in the source I provided in the Copyvio tag, that photo is part of a set belonging to an user of Skyscrapercity, who in the 31 December 2008 toured Brasilia photographing from the road (and in many instances, from inside the car) a number of buildings in the city he found interesting, mostly Medical facilities (something he jokes about there, saying something to the effect that good taste seems to come with good money, referring to the Medical wages). In any case, I doubt very much that someone taking pictures from the road, possibly even inside his car, would take the trouble to go to the Hospital and ask something as absurd as a permission to take photos in a public place, from a public place, especially someone from the SSC stock which seems to have a fair knowledge of the Brazilian situation when it comes to copyright claims. Even in the immensely remote case that this came to happen, the Hospital would never, never retain any bond to the photograph, since they were not entitled to allow what was already public domain in first place.-- Darwin Ahoy! 04:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
File:Basilica de Trindade.jpg and File:Basilica no natal.jpg might have some claim to legitimacy, as they are similar, taken with the same camera, and apparently uploaded to Commons one day after they were taken -- the latter part seems unusual if they were uploaded to an intermediate site first (but still possible). The others... dunno. They were taken years before being uploaded here. File:Trindade goiás.JPG and File:Praça de Trindade.jpg were probably the same author -- same camera (though different than the first two) on the same day -- but taken in 2007 and uploaded in 2010, so given the other obvious copvios we probably can't assume they are OK. Another upload has still another camera. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Febo Apolo told me in my talk page that the only legitimate photo he had ever uploaded was File:Hospital Daher.jpg, which turned out to be yet another copyvio. I'm not inclined to believe that those two photos of the basilica are his own work, especially since he apparently ignored that he could claim them. Most probably they were published during Christmas to show the illumination of the church (which was sort of a local event at the time, I've found a number of news articles written about that), and were immediately taken from wherever they were and uploaded here as "own work".-- Darwin Ahoy! 10:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By Google Translate, he said the only one of his which was deleted was that one; he did imply that some others were his. But yes, that one looks to be a bogus claim. And because of that, yes, it may be too doubtful to even keep the two of the basilica. The others, I would delete without question. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If I well recall, he mixed up things a lot, deleted with not deleted, to the point that when he opened this request, the files he requested undeletion were still not deleted, therefore my brain ignored that bit. But yes, you are correct, he said that "the only one of his which was deleted was that one". If the basilica photos are indeed his own, he can easily support that claim by uploading more photos taken with the same machine and taken by himself. It really boggles my mind why someone would go to this extent to claim others work, instead of simply picking his own camera and taking the pictures himself. It's so much more gratifying. :S -- Darwin Ahoy! 21:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further down in that thread, that SSC user says that he chose 31 December on purpose, to avoid car traffic and people in front of the buildings (it seems Brasilia gets deserted at that time of the year).-- Darwin Ahoy! 11:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose As already noted, the updated story does not match the facts. File:Hospital Daher.jpg was uploaded at skyscrapercity by the user Metropolitaneano who claimed himself authorship of this photo. In consequence, Daher Hospital is unlikely in a position to grant a permission for this photo. And the camera make and model of the EXIF data of this file do not match camera make or model of the photos taken of the basilica. All of Febo Apolo's uploads including this one appear to be untrustworthy. --AFBorchert (talk) 11:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per consensus above. --99of9 (talk) 01:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Aqualillies.jpg[edit]

The file is Aqualillies.jpg I have ownership of this file. The file was given to me by the person who took upon my request and they have issued me the right to use it. Please let me know what else I can do to make sure it doesn't get deleted.--Bertrampettigrew (talk) 16:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow the instructions at Commons:OTRS. – Adrignola talk 16:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the headline of this request to File:Aqualillies.jpg. Looks like the source on flickr was created soley to push the file here to Commons. The file has 720px at the longer site. This filesize was not selected by the uploader because they like 720px, this file size is a constraint of the facebook software where this file is originally taken from [3]. Copyright violation with an attempt to launder the image via flickr. --Martin H. (talk) 15:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Per Martin H. Should verifiable proof of the image's provenance be found, please follow the instructions at Commons:OTRS. Otherwise there's nothing to be done. – Adrignola talk 21:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Peter_Pronovost.jpg[edit]

Hi,

I sent a permission email back in early April to the OTRS. Will you be able to undelete this photo?

Thanks,

Stagophile (talk) 16:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both ticket 2010062510002733 and 2010090110000935 were not sufficient. They did not contain a release under a specific license. Please have the copyright holder send us the filled-in form at Commons:Email templates. – Adrignola talk 16:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be handled via OTRS. – Adrignola talk 21:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Luzern KKL Konzertsaal.jpg[edit]

Can someone have a look at this picture and see if it can be restored? It was nominated in a DR back in 2008 as part of a batch comprised almost entirely of French no-FOP pictures. The nominator included 3 pictures from other countries. Of those, two were considered erroneous nominations and not deleted, but this one was. I've been told that the picture resembles this one. If such is the case, it should be undeleted, since FOP in Switzerland does not open exceptions for works located in the interior of buildings, unless they are not in permanent display. The Swiss law says textually: "des oeuvres se trouvant à demeure sur une voie ou une place accessible au public", "works permanently placed in a public way (streets, paths, etc.) or in a place accessible to the public". COM:FOP shows a rather complicated and awkward translation of such a simple sentence, followed by the opinions of some lawyer about a supposed controversy which is not clear if is a real thing or some random wild thoughts.

Can someone please have a look in this case and, if possible, undelete the picture, which was possibly deleted by mistake along the others in the same batch?-- Darwin Ahoy! 22:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. – Adrignola talk 02:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Peterborough-i sziklafigua.jpg[edit]

With all due respect to the closing admin (whose decisions are always well considered), I believe this image was wrongly deleted. Just because something is a rock carving does not make it comparable to a coin. Not all carvings are alike - some (i.e. sculptures, even reliefs) are unquestionably 3D objects, but the mere fact that something an image is carved on a rock surface does not render it 3D. The closing admin agrees that the test is whether something would cast a shadow, and he suggests that the subject in this case would cast a shadow. We would be hard-pressed in these circumstances to see any shadow. Using the logic of the closing admin, anything with even a minimal amount of texture would therefore constitute a 3D object; I do not believe that to be correct, otherwise we would be deleting hundreds (thousands?) of other images of "2D" objects, everything from paintings to quilts, that have as much texture as this petroglyph. For example, the brushstrokes on many post-impressionist paintings have more of a 3D quality than the petroglyph in question - if this petroglyph is 3D, then so would this painting as its brushtrokes would cast more shadow than the petroglyph.

While the ultimate consensus here may be to uphold Jim's decision, I believe that this issue merits more consideraton from a wider group of editors, especially given that the majority view at the deletion discussion was that this was not a 3D object. For the reasons I gave at the deletion discussion, I ask that this image be undeleted. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Thank you, Skeezix1000, for both the compliment and the fair and comprehensive summary of the issues here. You almost get me to change my mind.
You are quite correct that there are many paintings that have significant relief in the brushwork (or sometimes palette knife work). The problem with that analogy here on Commons is that Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. (on which we rely for our handling of images of PD paintings) addressed a wide variety of paintings and concluded that photographs of them did not have the necessary originality for copyright. It did not address sculpture, coins, or rock carvings, hence our conservative position on our use of images of them.
You suggest that these are really 2D -- I think not. Among the various similar web images are petroglyphs photographed with side lighting which distinctly show the depth of the work. Just because the subject image was photographed with flat light does not deprive the photographer of his or her copyright -- he or she had a choice and made it.
I certainly agree that to a large extent the distinction between File:Adolphe Joseph Thomas Monticelli 001.jpg, which you cite above, and this petroglyph is artificial. Many copyright decisions are artificial, framed by the law and precedent, not reality. We can keep the painting because a judge has ruled that it is all right, but not the rock carving because we have no such ruling to back us up.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further to this, after an exchange on my talk page. I think that the problem we have is that, for simplicity, Commons has framed it as 2D versus 3D. That's fine, but it isn't actually where the line should be drawn -- it must be drawn where Bridgeman drew it, as that is our basis for rejecting copyright in images of paintings and drawings. So, what I should really have said, is not that this is 3D (which I believe it is), but that it was not covered by Bridgeman and therefore does not fall in our safety zone.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment That's a fair point which I had not considered. I will read Bridgeman. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but that's the issue in debate. You haven't responded to the reasons put forth. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done No consensus to undelete. This can be revisited if the law is further clarified, or commons consensus understanding of the law shifts. 99of9 (talk) 13:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Genderschool2a.jpg[edit]

I wish to request the undeletion of File:Genderschool2a.jpg. This was a legitimate upload from fr.Wikipedia and was in use on at least 7 different mainspace articles. Licensing, source and author information was clearly provided, and there is no reason to suspect copyright violation. According to the comment given in the deletion log (01:25, 5 June 2011), it was part of an August 2010 MDR. However, on closer examination, it appears that this is incorrect. The previously deleted image had a similar name (Genderschool2.jpg), but File:Gendershool2a is a different image. As far as I can see, no deletion request was posted on Gendershool2a, nor did any discussion take place prior to its removal. In short, seven different Wikipedias have been deprived of a legitimate, in-scope image which was not violating any known policy. On this basis, I ask for immediate undeletion of the file in question. Buckybarnz (talk) 02:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to Commons Delinker per administrative advice. Buckybarnz (talk) 13:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder why it wasnt deleted from fr.wp long time ago for a reason such as Je m'interroge sur la valeur éducative d'une fausse capture d'écran de jeu érotique à tendance pédophile. Midnight68 is rather abusing fr.wp, I would not call it a "legitimate upload". In use, sure, because this Midnight68 guy added the images. He tried spamming his work in other projects too. Pages like encyclopediadramatica or wikipediareview are as useful as a chocolate teapot, but in this case we can learn something about the poor guy Midnight68. --Martin H. (talk) 02:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For those wanting a link, the original DR was Commons:Deletion requests/Files by User:Midnight68. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For those wanting a second opinion, read the undeletion request posted here Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2010-08#File:Kogaru1.jpg. Note that several admins were critical of the way the MDR was handled in the first place.Buckybarnz (talk) 13:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And for those who need proof of covert vote-stacking against User:Midnight68, visit this thread on Wikipedia Review] (incidentally, I have it on good authority that this kind of outside canvasing is unacceptable in Commons). Buckybarnz (talk) 13:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything wrong with scrutinizing Wikimedia projects off-site. Outside opinions should be welcomed, especially if they offer new insight, expertise, or alternatives. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In this situation: It is. At least that pages (ED, RV) are aware that with Midnight68 we have attracted somene who is only abusing our project. --Martin H. (talk) 12:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose. The deletion request was successful and covered File:Genderschool2.jpg. Midnight68 uploaded the file in question at first at fr.wikipedia and someone else brought it in here as File:Genderschool2a.jpg. They are the same file, only a slightly different resolution. Any administrator can compare the deleted versions of the two files and verify this. Midnight68 is indefinitely blocked here, so this appears to me to be a case of uploading files to a wiki where he is not blocked and having someone transfer the images here to do a work around of the deletion request that was already handled. – Adrignola talk 03:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Support The image was in use on multiple mainspaces, proving it was completely within scope. If, as Adrignola claims, the two pictures are the same image, then it should be undeleted due to the original MDR being in error: the image is now proven to be neither out of scope nor a copyright violation. In addition, as pointed out by Martin H, there is clear proof of offsite canvassing in the original MDR. Alternately, if the two pictures are not the same image, then Genderschool2a should be undeleted for the same reasons: the file was in use, licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0, and therefore violated no specific policy. Whichever alternative is correct, I believe that no administrator should have the right to remove mainspace images on the basis of unproven suspicions (see Adrignola's comment above). This deletion ignores the rights of local Wikipedia communities to use free license material whenever and wherever it is made available - especially when Commons is their sole source of illustrative media. Buckybarnz (talk) 06:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since you point out my comment and address me in particular, I'll point out that your dozen edits at Commons are your only edits on any Wikimedia project, yet you have distinct knowledge of Wikimedia projects and policy. So I'll throw out another suspicion that of course cannot be proven, that this is an account operated by someone with previous experience here. – Adrignola talk 13:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)::[reply]
My edit history is irrelevant to the subject under discussion. Try to stay on topic.Buckybarnz (talk) 14:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tsk, tsk. Sockpuppetry is naughty, you know. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support In-scope images should never be removed without notice, no matter what the circumstances. As a matter of fact, considering the offsite canvasing and last minute tampering, the first MDR should also be considered invalid.Derjotun (talk) 10:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC) (now blocked Sockpuppet of Midnight68)[reply]
"offsite canvasing" - As this is your very first edit on Commons, was that a confession? --Túrelio (talk) 10:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean by that. Martin H posted a direct link to Wikipedia Review, where vote stacking against User:Midnight68's images is very obvious. If you read the WR thread closely, you'll see that some comments were posted verbatem to the MDR.Derjotun (talk) 11:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - in scope images should be removed immediately if there is a good reason, such as copyright violations. In this case, we have an indef-blocked user reuploading his stuff via either sock or meatpuppets. I suggest we keep this deleted and get rid of the few remaining Midnight images. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There were no copyright violations whatsoever. This was established several times, most notably here. Also, there is no proof of sock/meat puppetry, just ordinary users uploading in-scope images in good faith. On the other hand, there is strong proof that the MDR was manipulated by off-site discussions and last-minute tampering. There was even a mainspace image removed from en.Wikipedia before the MDR was closed (possibly to avert an "in scope" defense). It's very strange that such serious policy violations are swept under the carpet whenever this user's work is discussed.Buckybarnz (talk) 13:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • BTW: As stated above, if you can produce concrete evidence that Midnight used sockpuppets or colluded with other users, I will retract this undeletion request without further argument.Buckybarnz (talk) 13:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's irrelevant whether it was good faith or not on the person who transferred this file here and thus I did not name the person who performed the transfer. The fact is that the file in question is a scaled-down duplicate of another file that was deleted in accordance with a past deletion request. – Adrignola talk 13:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1. If the image(s) were in use, they were automatically in scope. This is Commons policy. If they were in scope, the previous deletion request has been proven invalid. Logically, in-scope images are far more important than highly dubious deletion requests.
2. No, good faith is not irrelevant, especially since you raised the issue to justify your actions. For the sake of clarity, do you retract your statement that Midnight is conspiring with other users to upload his work to Commons? Please answer yes or no. Buckybarnz (talk) 14:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Spamming your work all over Wikipedia is not legitimately in use but plain vandalism. And yes, he is doing this, you are the perfect example youself. --Martin H. (talk) 15:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC) D'oh!, now I blabbed and fun is over. --Martin H. (talk) 15:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contributing in scope images is neither spamming or vandalism. If you believe COM:SCOPE#File in use in another Wikimedia project is wrong, perhaps you should ask for it to be changed.Doctorzeemo (talk) 09:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support tentatively. If there is at least one user other than the uploader (not a sockpuppet/meatpuppet) who wishes to legitimately use this image in a real, relevant article, then it is quite irrelevant what misbehaviour the uploader engaged in to re-upload these images. Images are never deleted solely because the uploader is a bad user. Copyvio has not been demonstrated. However, I am suspicious of how vehement User:Buckybarnz and User:Derjotun are (what is their stake in this matter?) and also have not checked the delinker log to access the revision history of the affected articles, which is essential to demonstrate legitimate use. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support. According to the global usage log, this image was in use in seven mainspace articles. In scope images should not be subject to Jimbo-style deletions, especially since the original mdr is starting to look invalid (if not highly suspicious). Doctorzeemo (talk) 09:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The "in use" in ca,cs,es,fr,gl,no,vi WP comes because Midnight68 himself spammed it to that pages. The in use in en WP comes because he added it there with a possible sockpuppet. Thats all usage, all done by himself or socks, this answers the point of Dcoetzee too. --Martin H. (talk) 15:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've never heard anyone but Buckybarnz, Derjotun, and Doctorzeemo refer to a deletion request as "MDR". The first two individuals are blocked as sockpuppets of Midnight68. Regardless this isn't a "Jimbo-style" deletion; the image was pointed out on the admins' noticeboard as a file imported from a local wiki that was the same as a file of a different name already deleted as the result of a past deletion request which had consensus and had arguments beyond the "out of scope" some are focusing on, covering "illegal" or "fake". – Adrignola talk 14:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are absolutely right, Doctorzeemo is the third sockpuppet in this single discussion already. This also answers the question of Dcoetzee, their stake here is that they are the same person. This finding is based on a cross-wiki checkuser via the Checkuser-l. --Martin H. (talk) 15:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • So let me get this straight. A flawed DR led to the deletion of images -- images for which no one could ever prove a copyright violation (in fact, they were primarily deleted because they were too good -- that is, that they resembled the content they were meant to illustrate so precisely that people couldn't believe that they weren't copyvios). As a result of persistently posting these non-copyvio images, Midnight68 was indef blocked. Now we're trying to prohibit these images coming in again, even from a source other than Midnight68? It seems to me the proper course of action here is to undelete all of the files from the original DR, unblock Midnight68 (probationally), and be thankful we have free illustrations of this sort of content from an apparently talented artist. Powers (talk) 20:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • N.B.: if sockpuppetry allegations prove to have validity, then obviously Midnight68 ought to remain blocked. But I agree with above comments that that's no reason to keep useful content, legally released under a free license, deleted. Powers (talk) 20:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    How's it a source other than Midnight68 when the transferred file clearly stated that it was uploaded by Midnight68, only at fr.wp instead of Commons? – Adrignola talk 21:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It was a user other than Midnight68 who uploaded it to Commons. Which means it's not just Midnight68 who thinks the image is valuable to the project, which means the previous arguments about self-promotion are severely weakened. Powers (talk) 22:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Not especially, sometimes people just do a purge of free images on other wikis and transwiki a load without really caring what they are. A couple of years back I went through and transwikied every image used in any article about Bristol - a fair few were useless to my mind, but in use so I just went with it. Removing images from articles is always a nightmare because people get very parochial about it. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, either way, it's not Midnight68 uploading the image. Are you saying that no one can upload Midnight68's work to Commons? Why? On what grounds? Could I do it? Powers (talk) 12:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the question to be asked before being able to answer this is, if Wikimedia Commons is the final hideaway for people that have been banned from all other web for pedophilia under the cloak of "free licensing". And if Wiki Commons is willing to ennoble that peoples mediocre quality work to something above ordinary spam and self-created artwork, and if Commons is a platform to give them some fame with making them visible on the internet including allowing them to do promotional spam for some pedo-games created for self-entertainment. My impression - my hope at least - is that this development is not shared by the community of Wikimedia Commons. Wikipedia is not written in one day, in 50 years (cet. par.) we will have previously published public domain content that will allow to illustrate articles with images selected by educational criteria. Not with images that show one persons POV included soley because published by Midnight68 under a free license and added to this article by him in an attempt to spam his work cross-wiki. --Martin H. (talk) 22:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, so this is an ideological crusade. You do, at least, acknowledge that the original DR claiming copyright violations was poorly executed, then? Given that, then, what possible reason for deletion could there be? Pedophilia? Hardly; there's no nudity and we have much more salacious stuff than girls in their underwear available. Low quality? Yes, so low that many people thought these were copyright violations due to their fidelity to the genre. Self-promotion? That's never been a valid deletion reason here. We all engage in self-promotion every time we upload something with an attribution-required license. Powers (talk) 12:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Its my personal opinion and I said it to him. The copyright violation idea possibly came from the descriptions that claim this original research stuff beeing from the early time of anime. You should propably ask the whole community to answer my above question. There might be a group of people without representation on this project page with an opinion on this. --Martin H. (talk) 14:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


 Not done No consensus to undelete, despite plenty of interference from sockpuppets. --99of9 (talk) 13:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Seal of Minnesota.svg[edit]

The file was licensed as PD-MinnesotaGov, and several files with that license were deleted when the license was no longer recognized. However, it was overlooked that the Seal is PD under US federal law, because it was adopted in 1861, when the current age limit is January 1, 1923. This particular version was also independently created by a User on Commons, and he released it as PD. The file is allowed on Commons under these reasons, this was a misunderstanding. I feel it should be undeleted, it was used extensively, and it's a shame to loose it because of a misunderstanding. Fry1989 (talk) 22:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: The file probably shouldn't have been allowed under PD-MinnesotaGov anyways as the artwork was from source without a free license. I am the creator of the file, and all it was, was a colorized version of File:Seal of Minnesota (B&W).svg, which was just a direct copy of http://www.brandsoftheworld.com/logo/minnesota-seal. As per Commons:Coats of Arms, this is just basically "found artwork". We don't know when it was published, but given it is a vector graphics file, it would not be PD-US or anything similar.--Svgalbertian (talk) 01:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PD-MNGov was an invalid license; it cannot be used as a rationale. Also, per Commons:Coats of Arms, each different drawing of a seal is a separate copyrightable work (they are separate expressions of the same idea), and must be licensed individually. That the design dates from 1861 is completely irrelevant (though it means there are likely plenty of PD versions to find and upload). An SVG particularly would be a modern work, and needs a free license of some sort. Two people draw their own versions of the seal, neither are derivative works of another, and each owns the complete copyright on their respective drawings. No state "owns" the design to the seal to the extent that original drawings of them are derivative works in a copyright sense (though there are generally trademark-ish laws protecting particular uses of them); the source of each specific drawing must be traced. States do own drawings on their own websites, so those should not be copied. Where did this particular SVG come from? Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The artwork is from http://www.brandsoftheworld.com/logo/minnesota-seal which is just a site people upload logos to, it is almost impossible to determine the origin unless you can find a copy of it on another site dated before "Mon, 05/21/2007 - 04:05".--Svgalbertian (talk) 02:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
True. However, this could well be a copy of the original 1861 design (or another pre-1923 design). If old designs can be found, and this is an exact copy of one of them, I doubt that slavish tracing would garner new copyright. -- Orionist ★ talk 02:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It appears the artist was trying to copy the 1983 version of the seal. Some history and pictures here: http://www.leg.state.mn.us/webcontent/leg/symbols/sealarticle.pdf --Svgalbertian (talk) 03:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent find! This has very good pictures and details that might be all needed to make its Wikipedia article a Good Article. Back to our case, we have here a design from 1983 with no attached copyright notice, but the possibility of copyright registration. I searched the US Copyright Office website for post-1978 records and couldn't find any, although I tried every possible keyword combination (seal of Minnesota, Minnesota state seal, Minnesota seal), even searching "seal of the state" brought just five results, all for other states, all are independent depictions by printing companies. So I'm leaning here towards considering this as {{PD-US-1978-89}}. Regards, -- Orionist ★ talk 08:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is an extract of the Minnesota Historical magazine Roots, which is likely under copyright. Although, if the illustration was just a copy of the seal in use... I'm not sure that gets a copyright by virtue of being there. As for an SVG, I'm usually pretty dubious that something like that is a straight trace... usually there is a fair amount of additional work involved in the SVG. Looking at them, it would not surprise me if that SVG did start out as a trace of the version pictured in that article. I suppose it's possible that there were no additional creative contributions made... most of the time it seems there would though. Although the brandsoftheworld version does look very very close, there are details in how to do the shading etc. BTW, there is more historical information on the seal in a 1952 article here; that magazine issue did have its copyright renewed (but again, the illustrations are not owned by the magazine and are from much earlier). Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is very close. I did not know about the 1983 version of the seal before posting it here, and I am surprised how close it was. In this case I am leaning towards {{PD-US-1978-89}}, but we are in a very grey area.--Svgalbertian (talk) 17:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There has to be some way that's acceptable to bring back the Seal. This was a terrible loss. Fry1989 (talk) 18:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is, but we can't do it by copying someone else's work (unless licensed or PD via other means). If it helps, I just uploaded File:Minnesota-StateSeal.svg, which appears to be the vector version of the us embassy bitmap. That was part of a series of SVGs I just uploaded from the same basic source -- 46 states. I have also found a completely different Minnesota seal SVG by the US federal government, which I'll also upload at some point, though it's not nearly as good. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User:Fry1989 has gone and re-uploaded the image from this deletion request (albeit with extremely minor changes) and claimed it as his own work. This is unacceptable, and shows a lack of respect for this community, and a complete disregard for copyright. I have reported them at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#File:Seal of Minnesota.svg and User:Fry1989.--Svgalbertian (talk) 14:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replacement licensed as {{PD-USGov}} uploaded, so close --O (谈 • висчвын) 23:43, 18 June 2011 (GMT)


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

Commons:Deletion requests/Latvian money[edit]

Files regarding Latvian money


Have been deleted as per request which is based on wrongful application of rules - the Latvijas Banka (Latvian Bank) owns copyright of Latvijas latslats and not of the Latvijas rublis (Latvian rubel) which was a transitional money. These files have been mistakenly deleted as they depict Latvijas rublis, not the Latvijas lats. --F1 fanat (talk) Have been deleted as per request which is based on wrongful application of rules - the Latvijas Banka (Latvian Bank) owns copyright of Latvijas latslats and not of the Latvijas rublis (Latvian rubel) which was a transitional money. These files have been mistakenly deleted as they depict Latvijas rublis, not the Latvijas lats. --F1 fanat (talk)

One of Latvian wikipedia users wrote an e-mail to Bank of Latvia, they responded that the copyright law does not concern Latvian roubles or any other historical currency as main purpose of any current laws on reproduction of coins and banknotes is to foil counteirfeiting atempts ~~Xil (talk) 20:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should be  On hold - I am not opposed to this undelete at a later date, I just think it slightly premature. The issue inculding these comments, is currently being addressed here. Before we undelete these images I think several things need to be worked out.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 13:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Disagree this shouldn`t be kept on hold any longer - the other discussion has frozen, seemingly no one involved in it is versed in law and frankly it seems that people don`t even see diffrence between two currencies. In the mean time we have bank (which probably had its lawyers answer this) saying it is PD, and the law in accordance to which this was deleted dosen`t apply here in the first place ~~Xil (talk) 10:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know when a firm statement regarding rublis from the Bank of Latvia reaches OTRS.  Not done for now --O (谈 • висчвын) 00:00, 19 June 2011 (GMT)


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

File:HotDogEatingSign.JPG[edit]

Inappropriate case for speedy, since no reason was given why this image is different from any of the other images in Category:Murals in the United States. If someone wants it to be deleted, they should nominate it for deletion through the ordinary process. AnonMoos (talk) 15:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The image might have to be deleted in the end, but the way it was done in this particular case was highly unfortunate, with a template rationale which ignored relevant issues and a misleading edit summary. AnonMoos (talk) 09:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 OpposeI'm not sure that the speedy was against policy -- it's a pretty obvious copyvio as there are at least ten photographs on the billboard. The image was photographed after July 4, 2007 (see the list of recent past champions which has an entry for 2007 but not 2008). The billboard itself is clearly recent.
But, whether or not against policy, since it was righteous, there is no reason to undelete it and go through a DR to reach the same place.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not restored, per the Jameslwoodward rationale. --Dereckson (talk) 19:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

Requesting undelation of : Image: My_Big_Break_new_cover.jpg[edit]

I am requesting that the file I recently uploaded be undeleted: Image: My_Big_Break_new_cover.jpg

Here is the entry from edit log on the My Big Break page: (cur | prev) 09:35, 16 June 2011 CommonsDelinker (talk | contribs) m (8,572 bytes) (Removing "My_Big_Break_new_cover.jpg", it has been deleted from Commons by Yann because: Copyright violation.) (undo)

As I stated clearly in my original upload, I hold the copyright to this artwork just as I hold the copyright to the earlier version. I followed the steps needed as indicated in the Wikipedia image uploader. Not sure why this was targeted for deletion. Please reverse this decision or tell me what I need to to in order to have it undeleted.I saw nothing on my talk page that would have explained this to me. In the meantime I reuploaded the old file for My Big Break cover art. I hold the copyright to that too- please don't delete! Thank you --Kedesk (talk) 15:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We delete stuff like this all the time - people upload posters, cd covers, etc that they don't have rights to and claim it as own work. If you want it undeleted, please send a permissions email to our OTRS team. This acts as a way to say "yes, we have some sort of verification that the uploader is who he says he is". -mattbuck (Talk) 15:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have marked both your files with no permission, this usually prevents them from being seen as copyvios, and gives you some time to regularise the situation. But you have to send the mail and replace that tag with {{OTRS pending}}, or else they could be deleted in a week.-- Darwin Ahoy! 15:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Handled via OTRS. – Adrignola talk 16:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Last 3 photos of Commons:Deletion requests/Files of User:Famkr01 (not nominated by me)[edit]

To give the author the chance to correct his author-claims. To clarify the situation. see also

He sent me an e-mail and left a note here. I start this UR rather because I am convinced he tells the truth but I was too late for the DR. Community should decide what to do. -- RE rillke questions? 20:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He may well be telling the truth, but if his late mother-in-law was the photographer, then it is up to his mother-in-law's heir(s) to give permission, not Rudi Kölbl as it is unlikely that Rudi Kölbl owns the rights.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS permission needed by Rudi Kölbl mother-in-law's photos' copyright holders. --Dereckson (talk) 16:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Giedroyc Arms in England.jpg[edit]

Hello, can someone please give a second opinion on this deletion - File:Giedroyc Arms in England.jpg? The uploader repeatedly requested the deleting admin to explain it, but never got an answer (to my knowledge). I find strange that a Spanish coat of arms is being given as reason to delete an English CoA. Perhaps I'm missing something? -- Darwin Ahoy! 06:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restored the image to open a regular DR, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Giedroyc Arms in England.jpg, so things could be clarified. --Dereckson (talk) 16:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

Cambodian Dance Celebration of the Gods[edit]

File: Cambodian Dance Celebration of the Gods Reason for request of undeletion. This book, Cambodian Dance Celebration of the Gods, is copyrighted to myself, the author, Denise Heywood and published by River Books, Bangkok Thailand. I do not understand why Jean Bono has claimed copyright. He has no copyright to this work. Signed by Denise Heywood. 19 June 2011.

I presume that you mean File:Cambodian Dance Celebration of the Gods Wikipedia.jpg. It has not been deleted. You should place your comments on the discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cambodian Dance Celebration of the Gods Wikipedia.jpg. Jean Bono has not claimed copyright. Jean Bono has suggested that the author (you) should send a message to the OTRS system to assure us that the uploader really is "Denise Heywood". This is to protect your copyright and ensure that it is not just someone pretending to be you. --Tony Wills (talk) 11:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image not deleted but in DR. Please, as indicated by Tony Wills, use Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cambodian Dance Celebration of the Gods Wikipedia.jpg for further arguments. --Dereckson (talk) 15:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:LoliWikipetan.jpg[edit]

Deleted unilaterally by Jimbo in 2007, in a precursor to his infamous purge, and never considered for undeletion, as far as I can tell. I think the discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Wikipe-tan lolicon (2007-01-04) shows a variety of opinions but I believe the final consensus was in favor of keeping the image. It is not illegal material, is clearly in scope (e.g. could be used to illustrate lolicon), and has no outstanding copyright issues. The best argument I can see for deleting it is that the needless use of Wikipe-tan in this role (as opposed to another random anime girl - as in File:Lolicon Sample.png) creates negative associations for the project's reputation - but I don't find this compelling. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it was this what was deleted, I tend to  Support undeletion. It looks like a teen dressed as Wikipe-tan in a sexy pose, and as much paedophilic as old men drooling at high-college girls passing on the street. Ironically, for that very reason, it possibly is not the best image to illustrate the lolicon articles (none is, almost certainly), but if the projects want to use it, I don't see why not. What about the other deleted images in the same DR?-- Darwin Ahoy! 22:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, that's the image under discussion (excepts ours is 430×600). The other three images (File:LoliWikipetan2.jpg, File:LoliWikipetan3.jpg, and File:Loligirl.jpg) are slightly modified versions: in 2 she is smiling instead of worried-looking, in 3 one of her puzzle pieces is removed from her hair, and in Loligirl.jpg the Japanese letters are removed (the latter two changes appear to have been intended to disassociate her from Wikipedia). Unless association with Wikipedia remains a point of contention, I think all four images should be undeleted together. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If I well recall from something I red somewhere (wiki-en, I guess) Wikipe-tan is considered on itself a liability while project mascot, appealing to the wrong user pool and all that stuff typical of the strategy wiki. It is somewhat dysfunctional to use the argument of that puppet being a Wikipedia mascot (which it isn't, and there seems to be efforts towards completely disconnecting it from that role, even informally) to delete a drawing of a girl which obviously is not 10 years old - more like 10 years on each leg, as we say in Portugal - on the grounds that we want dear wikipe-tan pure and clean as much as we can to preserve the project's image.-- Darwin Ahoy! 23:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted. Serves no encyclopedic purpose...Lolicon is already adequately illustrated...seems gratuitous.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How could this sexualized, coy pose of a girl-woman with her crotch displayed and a look of vulnerability and fear, as she peeks out from under her hair, be thought suitable for association with an encyclopedia for all ages, all cultures, all sexes -as Wikipe-tan has been promoted, denials here to the contrary notwithstanding? Change the name and it would just be immaturely salacious, but at least not as obvious an insult to the women on the project. Leave it gone, please. Bleh! Bielle (talk) 01:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that "the women on the project"(TM) would equally be insulted by being compared to a not-very-intelligent looking child with a meek smile in her face dressed as a French maid, but I may be wrong.-- Darwin Ahoy! 01:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And if I had made that comparison, they would have had good reason, but I did not. Come to think of it, the image is equally insulting to the men of the project, and I should have said so. A "not-very-intelligent looking child with a meek smile in her face dressed as a French maid" could not possibly represent them either. Bielle (talk) 03:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you made: "Change the name [LoliWikipetan] and it would just be immaturely salacious, but at least not as obvious an insult to the women on the project." It follows that "the woman of this project"(TM) identify with Wikipetan, or else they would not be insulted by the use of its name on a mildly sexually suggestive image. I'm a man and I'm not insulted with it either - not even with the pictures of other men dressed as wikipetan. But it is not important, let's move forward.-- Darwin Ahoy! 03:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted - per Bielle. Seriously, folks, where's the encyclopedic use? And is this a useful/representative/appropriate image to represent the project in the first place? - Alison ❤ 03:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is Kafkian. Have you checked the source in the article to the claim that "wikipe-tan was acknowledged by Jimbo as a community mascot" (apparently the nly thing that justifies the existence of the article in wiki-en, since it is self-referenced and based on God knows what? here it is. We are truly going on in circles. It was made a "community mascot" by this very image, nothing else, so it seems. If it was not that DR, and the quite improper deletion summary from Jimbo, wikipe-tan most probably had gone through the sinkhole of wikipedia history as "mascot" long ago. Jimbo deletes the file on his own, and Jimbo deems that it is a community mascot in order to justify the deletion... Not good, not nice.-- Darwin Ahoy! 04:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted; Bielle says what I want to say, but more eloquently. bobrayner (talk) 10:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - We are not "an encyclopaedia for all ages, cultures, and sexes", we are a repository of free media. If English Wikipedia finds this image offensive, they have a (large) image blacklist they can add it to. We at Commons simply don't care what you do with it. The questions are "is it freely licenced?" (PD-self apparently, so yes), and "does it have value?" I personally think it has value just to annoy Jimbo, but it could be used to illustrate a loli article, or an article on "Sexualisation of children", or maybe even Criticism of Wikipedia. IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason for deletion. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Connecting wikipedia (the logo elements) with sexualized children (even if fictional), reduces to below nil any conceivable value this image could have. Our scope is to educate, not to annoy Jimbo. --99of9 (talk) 12:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Come on, that is not exactly a "children"... A teen in a mallot or whatever that is with a slightly provocative look... Stuff you see in Disney channel every single day. Apparently it was in use in some lolicon articles, so it's scope should not be an issue.-- Darwin Ahoy! 14:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - In scope, freely licensed image. Powers (talk) 12:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - per Bielle's comments above. Killiondude (talk) 20:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - let me see a locicon associated with Wikimedia featuring a pre-pubescent leotarded girl with her legs spread - can't be a problem with that can there? We need more child porn, obviously. And what would Wikimedia's main standard bearer and fundraiser founder chap know about the public image of the project anyway? And it is obviously in scope, I mean the educational purposes of this are manifold and obvious ... like .... well, um, you know.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 20:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted; per Scott. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted Bielle speaks for me also. And I can't believe this is even being re-discussed.... First Light (talk) 20:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - Like First Light, I can't even begin to understand why the hell you're considering undeleting that abomination. It was removed for a bloody good reason, and removed is where it should stay. BarkingFish (talk) 22:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete: If we are talking about the image linked by DarwIn, then it is a good example for Sukumizu in Japanese art. I can't see any reason inside our policies to delete the image. It could be used in articles and is/was in scope. Just the personal taste or the steady attacks on Wikipe-tan shouldn't be the issue. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 08:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak  Support if Niabot thinks it could be useful as an example of Category:Sukumizu. A good picture, uploaded especially for Lolicon WP article (see w:Talk:Lolicon/Archive 11#A new image?), it was kept after the DR and the deleted by Jimbo without any policy-related reason. If the sexualisation of the mascot bothers some users (I agree, it's a valid point and it should be addressed), it's possible to rename the picture and to delete the puzzle pieces to destroy any association of the picture with Wikipe-tan and Wikipedia -- it's not that hard (and it was almost done in the File:Loligirl.jpg version). And again we have canvassing from somewhere. Sigh. Trycatch (talk) 13:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You must be referring to the Wikipedia Review. If so, we're just having a discussion. Activity on Wikipedia isn't free of being scrutinized off-site. There wasn't any mass call to keep the images deleted. Is it wrong to spread awareness of this discussion? I believe in accessibility, and outside expertise can provide ideas, viewpoints, and alternatives that were previously unavailable. A comment should be judged by how it contributes to the discussion rather than who is delivering the comment or how they learned of the discussion. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikipedia Review as a source of outside expertise? Hmm, it's interesting. Because previously I thought that WR is just a one more Internet troll haven, and it's somewhat strange to search outside expertise in such a place. But it seems that I was mistaken. Anyway, I don't really care about the source of that great "external expertise" we all see, just pointed out that if you discuss for example some hard copyright problem -- there would be not a living soul around, but if there is something about nudity, penises or Wikipe-tan -- Commons immediately get filled by dozens of outside experts. Trycatch (talk) 00:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • keeep deleted Lolicon is an issue that needs to handled with care and delicacy. This image doesn't really manage either.Geni (talk) 13:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, per Alison and Scott. --JN466 14:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment – I've asked a sysop to Email me copies of LoliWikipetan.jpg and its derivatives. I authored nearly all of the original Encyclopedia Dramatica's Wikipe-tan article, and I'm hoping to use these images to augment encyclopediadramatica.ch's documentation of Wikipe-tan drama. I don't believe that the images can serve an encyclopedic purpose on Wikimedia (unless a Wikipe-tan article with information on the deletion is created), but rest assured, those images will be available elsewhere for anyone wishing to learn more about the Wikipe-tan–Jimbo Wales lolicon controversy. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • As promised: LoliWikipetan.jpg, LoliWikipetan2.jpg, LoliWikipetan3.jpg, and Loligirl.jpg. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 01:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's a WP:Wikipe-tan page describing the controversy and giving a gallery of images in the Wikipedia: namespace on the English wikipedia. This image would be a helpful addition to that page, to give broader context as to what the disagreement was about. Voyager640 (talk) 04:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I also find it in scope of the article pointed by Niabot. I really don't understand why all this activism to keep deleted an image of a girl in a bath suit. It isn't that this image is essential to mankind knowledge and understanding, but still...-- Darwin Ahoy! 04:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Activism? What Activism? People are giving their opinions on the matter. Also.. that's not an article, that's a project page. If it were an article then I would agree with you about including the image due to the controversy itself (assuming sources and all that, given that this is a theoretical situation). As a project page the editors there rejected the pictures even before they got deleted. They've rejected some other "3rd party" renditions as well simply out of taste. Why? Because it's just a silly project page. It's not there as an educational piece, it's just there as some kind of community-booster type thing, with a side of "the history of Wikipe-tan" (which is why it mentions that at all in the first place). Trust me when I say they don't want these pictures. -- Ned Scott (talk) 23:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted I don't see the benefit in hosting Lolicon drawings, or most original artwork for that matter, regardless of the connection to Wikimedia. I can't see any good coming from hosting this particular drawing either. However, since there's no clear policy preventing people from uploading random drawings, I'm not sure how this could be other than a case of "I don't like it." I suppose that it fails the requirement that files "Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose", and on that basis I'm voting to keep it deleted. Will Beback (talk) 23:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I recruited all people who participated in the original deletion discussion, since I figured they might be interested, although many of them may no longer be available since it was so long ago. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted regardless of weather of not if hosting lolicon itself is a matter of good taste or or legal consequences, the problem with these images is that this is the sexualization of a community mascot, as pointed out by Jimbo Wales in his deletion request 4 years ago. We also had a lot problems of late because of supposedly having child porn on here, even though some of the images are of a historic nature. This is a can of worms that should stay closed; so what the only people who have issues with it is en.wikipedia. This is our biggest wiki and many of us are either admins or have a high status on there. Anything done there will probably be reflected here. In short, the images need to stay deleted (but if ED wants the images, they can ask an admin for copies of it). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support undeletion -- there are no are relevant arguments for a deletion request. --FSHL (talk) 10:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose undeletion -- per Alison and 99of9. If it would have been an unrelated image, I wouldn't care. But it's de facto a Wikipedia-associated icon. --Túrelio (talk) 10:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted I have no doubt that even if some how the deletion was overturned in the community, that then the Foundation would step in and delete it again. While Wikipe-tan is not property of the Foundation, nor is she "official", she's just waaay to well associated with Wikipedia, and it would be very bad for public relations/image. The Foundation is certainly within their rights to protect the brands and image of the Wikimedia projects, and even if they somehow didn't choose to take action, I would personally object for these same reasons as a Wikimedia editor.

    However, even without that, the original images were uploaded with improper licensing information. I'm going from memory here, but I believe the image was uploaded under some term or license that wasn't in the original Wikipe-tan images, and being a derivative of those images, this image would require to have the same terms (I believe Wikipe-tan is dual licensed, so either of those would have done. Someone (not the author/uploader) must have assumed the image was automatically under one of those two licenses and just changed the image description page. Even though the terms of the other Wikipe-tan images require being released under one of the two licenses, it is still a decision of the artist to knowingly violate copyright law. Or the image could have been made by someone else for personal use, with another person having uploaded it.

    TL;DR- The image has a standing licensing issue that can only be resolved by the original uploader (assuming they are the artist/author of the image). -- Ned Scott (talk) 12:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've done research on this for Encyclopedia Dramatica. The uploader is the artist. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • And the uploader has had multiple issues regarding bad image uploads and licensing issues. They also originally claimed that Kasuga was the uploader when they first uploaded the picture. The image even went through a few revisions on 4chan where it was originally posted. If you can get the user to come on here and say the image is released under CC or GFDL, and everyone is fine with taking their word for it, then great. I'm just pointing out that it was something that we were trying to clarify when it was deleted. -- Ned Scott (talk) 22:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete - Supporting undelete (choose any of the reasons given above) purely to test Ned Scott's contention that the WMF would "step in" and delete it again. I would like to see that happen. I may also be willing to take bets. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
COM:POINT, we aren't playing a game here. --Túrelio (talk) 06:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boy, Oh boy. How did I miss this dicussion. It was so much worth wasting all the time reading all the comments... Well may you got that would not undelete these images. For a couple of reasons. I think that Commons' Project Scope is good enough to have a raw idea if an image you are going to upload is needful or not and if it's thereby worth it uploading or not (Even only a tiny ammount of all uploades really read the project scope). But is the great shape is OK, you will get a different opinion for every user you ask if the image is in scope or not (By the way: I'm not talking about really usefull images like eg. WhiteHouseSouthFacade.JPG, RMS Titanic 3.jpg but rather abbout images like we are talking about right here). My opinion is different than yours and than the guy which's userpage you would see if you would click on the non existing random-user button.
To break it down: There is no correct answer in this. There are just some ideas which can be considered in a final discussion which should not be done by one single person. But who would waste his/her time? Of course with every decision you make there are at least hundred people telling you that you are an idiot and not able to read Commons' guidelines.
My thoughts on (some of) the given ideas:

  • Good for the lolicon article: Well, yes and no. It is as good as a video of anal sex for the article anal sex, or some child porn where you really see what it's all about when you rape a child - of course all within encyclopaedic use.
  • Good for the Sukumizu/School Mizugi article: As above. For this issue: There are better pictures. This image is not really about the swinsuit. As Fuwafuwa-chan.jpg is also not really about the swimsuit as well
  • I don't like it: That's actually what's all about. You can interpret all rules somehow that it fits to that what you think
  • Not such images of a mascot: Well, all time favorite.... Somehow. Actually the same as above. You don't like it (even you package it in a so called "reason")

Now why do I think that we do not need this image. For the same reason why I think that we don't need more penises or child porn on Commons. May in scope but we don't need an image just because it's in scope. Behind that there are some more ideas, but based on my opnion which you wouldn't share anyway. I want to close my contribution (which is - I agree - again far too long) with the words of some comments above:

"I don't really care about the source of that great "external expertise" we all see, just pointed out that if you discuss for example some hard copyright problem -- there would be not a living soul around, but if there is something about nudity, penises or Wikipe-tan -- Commons immediately get filled by dozens of outside experts."
by Trycatch

--D-Kuru (talk) 21:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Support undeletion -- I don't see a single policy based justification for deletion offered here.

    I had never heard of lolicon, or that creepy japanese serial killer.

    What is a sexually exciting image is totally in the eye of the beholder. Some individuals find really unpredictable things sexually arousing. Some individuals are not aroused by female women, but only by women's shoes. Some individuals are aroused by depictions of women wearing high heeled shoes stomping on small furry animals, or so I have read. So, should we delete all images of women's shoes, and all images of small furry animals? I suggest we can't delete every image that might arouse a creepy serial killer, because there is no image we could be sure won't trigger someone's excitement.

    We shouldn't endorse Jimbo Wales actions, when they are based on Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT. I suggest there are important parallels between Jimbo Wales and the founding President of a new nation. Wales can choose to follow the example set by George Washington and Nelson Mandela. Both men were very widely admired. Both men were the first Presidents at a time when their new nations had weak governance. Both men had admirers who told them that there were good reasons for them to serve as President for life, forgo elections, that their new nations needed their unique leadership. But both Washington and Mandela were wise enough not to succumb to their flatterers, served out their first terms, and then resigned to an elder statesman role. I am grateful to Wales for his role in starting the wikipedia. I am grateful to Larry Sanger for his role. But, IMO it is long past the time that Wales should have retired to an elder statesman role. Geo Swan (talk) 00:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decision

  • Not Done, image not undeleted

I stick with about 75% of the authors opposing this undeletion request. The image in question is about a young girl with her legs spread and a fearful look on her face. The connection with Wikipedia through the puzzle pieces is not establishing educative content. We can do without this picture in commons. I want to thank everybody for this good and respectful discussion. --Neozoon (talk) 23:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]



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

File:Coat of arms of the Kingdom of Libya.svg[edit]

The closing admin on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Coat of Arms of the Kingdom of Libya.png seemingly did not take into account the reasons that were developed during the discussion there as to why the reasons for deleting the .PNG and .GIF don't apply to the .SVG. The closing comment is excessively cryptic and unsatisfactory with regards to the SVG in particular, and would seem to indicate that the closing admin doesn't have any particular understanding of the special way in which copyright applies in the case of heraldry. AnonMoos (talk) 23:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Support restoring the SVG, from the sounds of it. It looks like the admin deleted all images in the DR, without realizing that SVGs are typically a completely separate work of authorship with a separate copyright. If there appears to be tracing or copying of very tiny, specific details in the SVG, that could be an issue but normally SVGs using self-drawn elements (or those drawn from other free works) are fine here, per Commons:Coats of Arms. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restored by Zscout370 - Jcb (talk) 18:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Photographs using Template:PD-CzechGov[edit]

Discussion Commons:Deletion requests/Photographs using Template:PD-CzechGov was closed by very doubtful way. User:Kameraad Pjotr concluded it by „Deleted, per nominator.“ although the discussion don't includes an exact list of disputed files and during the discussion it was cleary said that in some cases is template {{PD-CzechGov}} used absolutely legitimately and only some types of cases are questionable or unjustified. It is necessary to discuss particular controversial types of sources and their status toward law, not to delete all photographs with certain PD template.

I request for a sped revision of the conclusion. --ŠJů (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion was indeed a bad decision. The foundation should provide legal consulting to solve the problem here.--Kozuch (talk) 22:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just want to clearify, that such images desribed as "maybe ok because used in a publication" were not listed in the request. From reading and learning about the Finnish template I intentionally left photographic works from such publications out and only nominated images grabbed from government websites. On the gallery I provided you can still see the quality of the sourcing for 4 images (4 images the imposter Fredy.00 rescued for the moment with faked OTRS tickets). --Martin H. (talk) 22:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The legal status of copyright is independent on the photographic or un-photographic form of the image. The crucial criterion is whether the used source is 1) explicitly stated as free (e. g. legal acts, authentic instruments, public accesible registries or municipal chronicles) or 2) inexplicitly containable and hence doubtful (e. g. other informatory official stuff, government an parliament webs etc.) or 3) clearly not free (e. g. most of documents and webs of companies etc.). Photographs have utterly identical legal conditions as drawings and texts etc. Btw., a web publication is a publication just as printed or whatever other form of publication. --ŠJů (talk) 23:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, it is not true that photographs have identical legal conditions as drawings and text (protection of photographs is actually broader, see § 2 subsection 1, last sentence), but that is not important for this discussion. The main problem here is that most of the debated files fall (at best) into the second category – we don’t know; and Commons’ rules seem to require to delete such not-clearly-free files. --Mormegil (talk) 10:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We can discuss individual files, individual sources and specific types of sources. But the conclusion to delete all photographs with PD-Czech template en bloc is ungrounded, mistaken and harmful.
§ 2 subsection 1 of the Czech act 121/2000 Sb. mentions "dílo fotografické" in the same rank as "dílo slovesné", "dílo výtvarné" etc. That's what I said. --ŠJů (talk) 15:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC) --ŠJů (talk) 15:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, sorry, my mistake, I meant subsection 2, not subsection 1. --Mormegil (talk) 18:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The last sentence of subsection 2 says that works made by similiar technologies are subsumed under photographical works. No special condition for such works is stated here. --ŠJů (talk) 18:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is. We are really off-topic here—anybody, feel free to move this somewhere else. Subsection 1 states the conditions for a work to be copyrightable (it has to be a “unique outcome of the creative activity of the author”); subsection 2 allows several kinds of works (computer programs, database structure, and photographs [and “a work produced by a process similar to photography”]) to be protected even though they do not fulfill these conditions; for those kinds of works, the conditions are reduced, the sufficient condition is that the work is “original in the sense of being the author's own intellectual creation”, i.e. not a “unique outcome”. --Mormegil (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We aren't off topic. The question whether PD-Czech photographs have be treated in other way than PD-Czech drawings, maps etc. is very relevant here. The subsection 2 give no some special conditions for some kinds of works, but only additional corrections of definitions. I see no substantional distinction between "jedinečný výsledek vlastní tvůrčí činnosti autora" and "původní ve smyslu, že je autorovým vlastním duševním výtvorem". The subsection 2 only specifies that some potentially doubtful types of works fall fully sub the subsection 1. "Autorův duševní výtvor" is an exact synonym of "výsledek tvůrčí činnosti autora". "Jedinečný" (unique) is an equivalent of "původní" (original) in this context.
The meritum is that the whole discussion should be the question which of sources fall into the law definiton and how we should threat doubtful types of sources. An impeaching of all PD-Czech photographs is and was unreasonable. A photograph which is included in official decision or ordinance or official municipal chronicle is certainly free. --ŠJů (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can only repeat what I said above: The deletion requests only targeted images that not fulfill the template because they are not part of official documents but either grabbed from czech websites or uploaded with no verifiable source information at all. That was not correct use of {{PD-CzechGov}} but abuse. There must be a public interest in exclusion from copyright protection (and expropriation of the author, thats what we talk about here) and that interest is e.g. not given for images grabbed from random vanity galleries on gov websites. We may rename the request so that its name may reflect what was nominated. It wasnt a request to delete photographs using the template but photographs wrongly using the template, those photographs that are not parts of such works described in {{PD-CzechGov}}. Photographs that are part of works defined in {{PD-CzechGov}} was not nominated! --Martin H. (talk) 15:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The distinction between photographs and other kinds of works in the Czech copyright law is off-topic here. (I don’t think anybody suggested that photographs definitely under PD-CzechGov should be treated differently to e.g. texts definitely under PD-CzechGov.) You are wrong in your assessments above, “jedinečný” is not an equivalent of “původní”, the whole point of the subsection is to separate those two. But as I said, this is off-topic here, if you want further explanation to this, feel free to post to my talk (either here, or on cs:).
The question “which of sources fall into the law definition” is, indeed, the focus of this debate, but I cannot imagine how could we get to a definite result with that. And, as I mentioned above, the treatment of “doubtful types of sources” is specified by the Precautionary principle.
--Mormegil (talk) 23:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, it is necessary to abandon the mistaken and groundless conclusion of the deletion request. After it should be discussed the real merits. --ŠJů (talk) 07:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Support undelete. The provisions of the Czech legislation are clear, and the images should be public domain. The limitations raised in the discussions are groundless. Afil (talk) 18:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I added a table with all source and author information to Commons talk:Deletion requests/Photographs using Template:PD-CzechGov. If someon reasonable think that one of this files fulfills the requirements of {{PD-CzechGov}} (an official work, such as a legal regulation, decision, public charter, publicly accessible register[...] an official draft of an official work[...] and other such works where there is public interest in their exclusion from copyright protection.) we can undelete that file and give it a second, individual request. If you however think that the whole template Template:PD-CzechGov is wrong and that also files from 'vanity' galleries of public events of e.g. the czech prime minister are PD by law - then this is so or so the wrong platform but a case for Commons talk:Licensing. Files with faked sources and permissions by fredy.00 are excluded from the table. Afterwards and finaly we should rename the deletion request to something like 'Photographs illegitimately (an english speaker may know a correct term) using Template:PD-CzechGov'. --Martin H. (talk) 13:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This undeletion request doesn't concern the PD-CzechGov images in whole, but some images nominated for deletion because NOT in public domain.

no new argument have been given those images are in public domain for one year, so I close the current discussion.

11 months ago, Martin H. created a table on Commons talk:Deletion requests/Photographs using Template:PD-CzechGov with the source of each image. I suggest users still interested to restore these files use this table to create new undeletion requests (one per source), with an explanation on why this is in public domain. --Dereckson (talk) 11:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

Files by User:Midnight68[edit]

There has never been any evidence that these images were copyright violations. They may be distasteful to some, but they are in-scope as well-constructed examples created in the style of a particular genre of fetish media from Japan. Such images, freely licensed as they are, are useful for illustrating topics like en:Panchira (ja:パンチラ), where published commercial examples can't be used due to copyright concerns. Powers (talk) 12:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some images used on the project were indeed restored, like in this request. The current undelete request failed to show how the files are in scope. --Dereckson (talk) 10:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Undeletion Request!/Pedido de Recuperação de uma Página deletada![edit]

olá Meu nome é Rodrigo e eu gostaria de pedir que vocês do Wikipedia reavessem uma página com nome Ichivis Web Show, que foi deletada no dia 14 de junho. O que ocorre, é que resolvi fazer uma página no Wikipedia sobre o Web Show de uns amigo meus, e um tempo após seu término, foi deletada... Eu não compreendo muito bem, nem concordo com sua eliminação, e peço que vocês a reavejam, pois o seu conteúdo não era nada sem nexo, sem sentido, plagiado, MUITO MENOS de outras fontes. A página Ichivis Web Show fala de um VERDADEIRO Web Show, que REALMENTE está fazendo sucesso, e NENHUMA informação contida no mesmo é falsa. Eu gostaria que vocês anulassem o cancelamento desta página, e a liberassem de novo... Grato...


hello My name is Rodrigo and I would like to ask you to retrieve a Wikipedia page with name Ichivis Web Show, which was deleted on June 14. What happens is that I decided to make a page in Wikipedia about the Web Show of a friend of mine, and a time after,it was deleted ... I do not quite understand or agree with it's elimination, and I ask you to undelet it, because its content was nothing senseless, meaningless, plagiarized, MUCH LESS from other sources. The page Ichivis Web Show speaks of a true Web Show, what is REALLY being successful, and NO information contained there is false. I would like you to reverse the cancellation of this page, and release it back ... Thankful ...

Olá Rodrigo, aqui é o Commons, e não a Wikipédia, e esse caso não tem nada a ver connosco. O lugar correcto para pedir o restauro é este. Devo informar, no entanto, que vi o conteúdo da página que foi eliminada, e de facto não é próprio de uma enciclopédia, pelo que duvido que o seu pedido seja atendido.-- Darwin Ahoy! 22:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This request belongs to pt:Wikipédia:Pedidos a administradores/Restauro de páginas. --Dereckson (talk) 10:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

More penises[edit]

These images were recently deleted by admin Jcb, following deletion requests started by Florent Pecassou's sockpuppet FAP. Other images by the same uploader were recently undeleted (see archive). Rationale for deletion here was not adding anything distinct from other photos, which I completely disagree with. Jcb's reasoning seems to be "one penis is equivalent to all others", and possibly even worse that "having many photos of the same thing is bad". Having many photos of the same thing is incredibly useful, as it allows for different angles, lighting, etc. These are not just "out of focus webcam shot of my cock", these are high quality (about 10MP iirc) images that are part of a set. It makes no sense to undelete the previous lot only to delete these instead. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose - COM:NUDE is an official guideline, the images I deleted added nothing educational, that's why none of them was in use. I kept one of the penises, because it was one of the best images in the specific category. The others were just penises like they get uploaded hundreds each month, mostly by new users. I know the sockpuppet case, you might remember I was one of the users who applied pressure to this user to get his admin tools removed. The important this is the image itself, not the background of the nominator. Jcb (talk) 21:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - Just how many penises does an encyclopedia truly need? Commons is not a repository for people who enjoy uploading pictures of their cock to websites; that's PhotoBucket! - Alison ❤ 22:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support we have this discussion just a few days ago: Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2011-06#A whole host of penises. Not again. It's sad that Jcb ignores everything -- arguments, opinions, local consensus, results of previous discussions -- except his own opinion. Trycatch (talk) 00:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Not again. It's sad that Trycatch or Mattbuck ignores everything -- arguments, opinions, local consensus, results of previous discussions -- except his own opinion. But face the truth: some of us are trying to weight quality over quantity, and others try to keep every piece of shit. On which side will you be? --Yikrazuul (talk) 19:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You'll note that when Yikrazuul says quality over quantity, that he's never done anything to improve the quality of Common's coverage of penis, nor has he ever done anything to reduce excess quantity of anything but nudity. Quality over quantity, or simple censorship?--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Commons has enough penis photos. We don't need more. Steven Walling 18:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not restored. The consensus to undelete the previous batch matched the need to get more illustration possibilities. This discussion failed to give a rationale to mitigate the COM:NUDE guideline arguments. --Dereckson (talk) 10:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:I don't travel to eSStonia.jpg[edit]

This file was deleted as a result of Commons:Deletion_requests/File:I_don't_travel_to_eSStonia.jpg. The file as it existed at the time of its deletion can seen here. Given that the image changed during the discussion, and some of the comments were more of the "i don't like it" variety, it should be examined whether this is a valid candidate for undeletion. So that it is known, the image is in relation to en:Anti-Estonian_sentiment#eSStonia, where it is obviously of encyclopaedic use within that article, but of little use elsewhere (one would hope). russavia (talk) 05:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would only support undeletion if some kind of strict condition keeping this image off of all user and user talk pages were imposed, reserving it for article space only. Otherwise, the spectacle of people who are actually far closer to being Nazis than their enemies are, trying to hypocritically accuse their enemies of being Nazis, is a spectacle almost as loathesome as some of the notorious anti-Jewish images here on Commons... AnonMoos (talk) 06:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a matter to solve in local projects, Commons, per COM:SCOPE, doesn't exist to editorialize the other projects on pictures use. --Dereckson (talk) 15:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Given that this image is intended to illustrate a single article in WP:EN, why not just upload it there rather than to Commons? Although I think it is PD-text beyond any doubt (the only thing questionable might be the Nazi SS symbols, but they're just stylized esses themselves), it also has very limited educational use, so is borderline out of scope.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About the copyright issue. Well the DR were closed by a delete for copyvio only.
I also agree the image is in public domain. This is a red circle with a sentence and two elements some people consider as creative: (1) the use of two runes to replace SS in Estonia (someone in the DR seems to consider than matching two alphabets is enough to have a creative work) (2) one word is reversed: in red on a white rectangle. In my humble opinion, the combo of a circle, a rectangle, one text and two runes doesn't meet the threshold of originality.
About the publish on en. argument. If an image is published on en. to illustrate an article, it gains, per COM:SCOPE an educative value putting it in scope... --Dereckson (talk) 15:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Support The image is a red circle, a white rectangle, and some Cyrillic text. If the Best Western logo is ineligible for copyright, surely this is too. Dcoetzee (talk) 10:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Support - Looks simple enough to qualify for textlogo, as said above, and in use at wiki-en, therefore in scope.-- Darwin Ahoy! 10:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Not a pleasant sentiment, I guess, but it is clearly PD-textlogo (at least by U.S. rules) and also just as clearly in scope. No reason for deletion, and uploading to en-wiki only doesn't make sense either (other wikis may wish to have a similar article). Commons is not censored. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted PD-textlogo. Yann (talk) 08:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Oh yes, another penis - File:Vorhaut_eines_Penis.JPG[edit]

Oh yes, another penis. Deleted by Jcb whilst in use (linked from 3 other images, including File:Penis - Mensch.jpg - was in an image note, attached to a number on the image, appears to be part of a set). (Delinker log, deletion request) -mattbuck (Talk) 00:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh yes, another senseless discussion about another home-made dick-pic. Maybe we should rename commons, or open the project "self-made penis pictures for everyone by everyone.". --Yikrazuul (talk) 19:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I follow the Yikrazuul rationale. Out of scope, per COM:NUDE. --Dereckson (talk) 10:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've reopened this request. The closing admin didn't bother to address the main point of the request -- that the picture was in use on Commons and in my opinion legitimately in use (but yes, he followed the great Yikrazuul reasoning, i.e. that we should rename Commons or open the project "self-made penis pictures for everyone by everyone"). Take a look at File:Penis - Mensch.jpg -- it shows the same penis from different points of view in the annotations. It's a good set of different educational anatomical pictures with a good organization. Do we have any replacement for this? The closing admin refers to COM:NUDE, but hey, do anybody from the commenters listed a better quality replacement for this picture? Nope, even nobody bothered to do this -- the deleters used only the generic reasons without any real replacement analysis (e.g. "not again", "oh yes, another senseless discussion", "Commons has enough home-made pictures of penises", etc. -- in other words "OMG, it's a penis, let's delete it" and that's all). It demonstrates the pitiful lack of care by some Commons admins about the content of Commons -- i.e. to delete not so bad pictures without a good reason, without a good analysis, without good anything, just following generic rationales like "Oh yes, another senseless discussion about another home-made dick-pic". I agree that we need to create a great collection of pictures, but how such less-that-great deletions can help to do this? It will result only in that mediocre pictures will be kept, and better quality ones will be deleted. Trycatch (talk) 16:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support undeletion -- We live in a world where millions die from a lack of sex education. Commons is not censored. Frankly, there are some commons contributors to whom all images related to human sexuality look alike, and who would happily remove all but one, or all but a handful of our images related to human sexuality, when human sexuality is a very important topic. Those who favor deletion disappoint me by not offering specific arguments to support their suggested deletions. Geo Swan (talk) 20:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info The keeper fraction has only the pseudo argument, that blurry, not benefitial pictures (compared to the stuff we have already) should not be deleted because of "censorship". First of all, censorship means that we would delete EVERY picture of penises, vaginas or related stuff (so a kind of under 18 commons). This has really never been, is not and won't be the case. That sexuality is important was not questioned (difflink?), so this is also no argument, but only the improper use of emotions. Finally who are those evil contributors Geo is gabbling about? Is there any evidence, or just another "we will all die" argument or just a simple, plain lie? And what does "it was in use in commons (?) mean?
  • So, what we see here are truly no arguments, noone has explained why this picture is so very important in comparison to our different angels penises, or why bad quality, exiting home-made pictures would improve the quality here. --Yikrazuul (talk) 20:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you even look at the image in question? This is NOT a "bad quality" image, it is perfectly in focus at around 10MP, no blur, no overexposure - this could probably qualify for quality image. The image was IN USE on this project, as part of an annotated diagram with image notes to show other angles. That is what Commons is for. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It has been pointed out to me that you can't have looked at the image as you're not an admin. My apologies. Point is, this is NOT a bad image, it is a GOOD image. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support undeletion, per mattbuck. --ZooFari 22:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support undeletion, pet mattbuck and the fact that any image which is in use for an educational purpose clearly falls under the scope of Commons. MacMed (talk) 22:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The funny stuff in the story when you read Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vorhaut eines Penis.JPG is the image were nominated by mattbuck himself: Self-porn, nothing we don't have already. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC) --Dereckson (talk) 02:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus to restore: the image is considered high quality and to provide details not available on other pictures and so to be in scope. --Dereckson (talk) 02:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2011-06&oldid=358268916"