Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2013-06

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.

Seaton Hall Surrounding Area Map.jpg - to be undeleted[edit]

This file has been deleted erroneously as user Fastily has incorrectly identified this as not my work. I spent a long time drawing this map and resent the allegation without being contacted first. I would like this reinstated.

Page located here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Seaton_Hall_Surrounding_Area_Map.jpg Pklithgow (talk) 10:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I believe you, so feel free to re-upload the file: [2], [3]. -FASTILY 01:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:World Economic Journal covers.jpg [edit]

I'm sorry that I choose that way of uploading the file, but i'm not found right way. This file is not my work, but work of my friend. He deligated me to use this file in Wiki. So we decide to upload it in flicr and use this licensing. What is the right way to upload this file? With best regards, --Poletniy (talk) 11:00, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

В общем, мне разрешил публиковать это изображением сам автор. Но он не википедист и не может самостоятельно загрузить картинку ввиду ограничений викисклада. Мы решили с ним залить ее на flicr, а потом выбрать соответствующую лицензию. Как правильно следовало поступить в этом случае? Что нужно сделать, чтобы восстановить изображение? Автор готов подтвердить свое разрешение нужным способом. С уважением, --Poletniy (talk) 13:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This file cannot be hosted here; the cover art of these three journals is copyrighted. Lupo 20:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 01:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

Prof. Paulo Rochedo.jpg [edit]

A imagem em referencia é minha foto pessoal que inseri na minha página de usuário. Foi deletada por um colaborador que alegou ser de baixa resolução e colocou em dívida a autenticidade da foto. Solicito a gentileza de undeletar este arquivo. Obrigado --Paulo Rochedo (talk) 01:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)Paulo[reply]

If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 05:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Poletniy (talk) 13:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Robert Joseph Greene Press Phto.jpg[edit]

and File:Robert Joseph Greene V2 Press Photo.jpg

I find it kind of odd that I was told that "" Everything has been received and nothing further action is needed" and then 25 days later gets removed. We made the license change as you requested and in fact the photographer emailed wikicommons, too. So, I don't see why this was removed.

Furthermore, I want the person who DELETED this to go back to the notes (discussion) site where it said "" Everything has been received and nothing further action is needed" and tell me WHY THEY FELT they could override another wikicommons editor's comments and just remove a photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Desaderal (talk • contribs) 08:30, 31 May 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose I have examined OTRS ticket 2013050410007827. The words you quote above, "Everything has been received and nothing further action is needed" do not appear there. All that we have received referring to these images is an e-mail from a g-mail account in which the photographer says
"While I retain full rights to my work, I grant Robert Joseph Greene the limited rights and permission to use the images, labeled Robert Joseph Greene Press Release and Robert Joseph Greene V2 Press Release, for promotional distribution and usage."
As our OTRS volunteer told you, that is far from the CC or other free license which Commons requires for images kept here.
I find that the purported photographer who sent the g-mail message is something of a mystery. We are told that it came from Ben Odynski at Odynski Studios. Almost all professional photographers have a web site showing off their work. This one does not -- in fact, except for the interchange with WP and Commons, "Ben Odynski Studios" doesn't show up in Google at all..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand -- or perhaps, you don't. Both files were "deleted" by Administrator Krd at the same time for the same reason -- that the OTRS permission was not valid. Both files are still visible to Admins -- we never actually delete anything.
You say
"The words were written in the discussion of file:File:Robert Joseph Greene Press Phto.jpg by an editor who was monitoring the file." -- ::Where? The file never had a talk page. I don't see anything related to this in your history. Of course we have more than 17 million files, so it is possible that I missed something.
Although I would like to track down the source of your misunderstanding -- we try hard not to confuse new users -- it is irrelevant to the central issue here, which is that we need a valid license from the photographer, coming from a verifiable source. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted per OTRS ticket 2013050410007827 - Jcb (talk) 22:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Paid Urbanism (MONU cover June 16 2004).jpg [edit]

The image has been taken from www.monu-magazine.com and this file was given to me by its owner (MONU). The copyright owner of this file has given it to me for uploading on Wikipedia. I can provide evidence that they have agreed to release it under a free license, for free use by anybody and for any purpose.

The image depicts the first cover-page of MONU. It serves as the primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the work in question. It illustrates the article on MONU and demonstrates its appearance.

If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 18:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Huddesteen eenhoornsluis.jpg[edit]

I am the photographer of the two compound images as well as the creator of the montage (a composite of two images), so there is no copyright violation as the Eenhoornsluis location is also in a public area in Amsterdam.

Hans Erren (talk) 18:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 18:56, 31 May 2013 (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:Profeta gentileza.jpg[edit]

Apesar da defesa feita pelo user:Maddox, o sysop Jim deletou a o arquivo File:Profeta gentileza.jpg, desconsiderando a argumentação por manter, que é válida. A Lei do Brasil consagra a liberdade de panorama, ela considera que obras de arte expostas em local público não são obras passíveis de direito autoral. Logo, o autor da fotografia é o verdadeiro dono do direito autoral e poderia dispô-lo em favor do commons. Esta eliminação foi completamente absurda. Leandro Rocha (talk) 19:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Self-portrait of Joseph Daltrino, known as Prophet Kindness, like the popular River Despite the defense taken by user: Maddox, the sysop Jim deleted the file File: Prophet gentileza.jpg, disregarding the argument for maintaining that is valid. The Act enshrines Brazil freedom of panorama, she believes that artworks exposed in public works are not subject to copyright. Therefore, the author of the photograph is the true owner of the copyright and could arrange it in favor of the commons. This elimination was completely absurda.Janeiro. The self-portrait is an urban overpass in the port area of Rio
translator: Google
Since this file was deleted almost two years ago, I think your outrage is misplaced. It appears that the Brazilian FOP applies, as it is said to be under a public underpass. I have therefore restored the file.
With that done, I emphatically reject your assertion that the painting is not subject to copyright. Freedom of Panorama does not change the copyright status of a work, it simply makes it permissible to create a derivative work without payment to the creator. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sim, acho que me expressei mal: ele tem direito autoral sobre a obra, mas a obra derivada dela (a fotografia) é livre. A discussão sobre isso é consenso? Obrigado. Leandro Rocha (talk) 00:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is correct. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:32, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done by Jim -FASTILY 23:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:עדה אמיכל ייבין.jpg[edit]

An OTRS permission was received. Thanks. Hanay (talk) 07:48, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • For future occasions, please, indicate the number of ticket.

✓ Done Requested by an OTRS volunteer. --Alan (talk) 12:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This needs the OTRS ticket number in the image file. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:40, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like ticket:2013053110006885 relates to this file, but I've asked Hanay to add the ticket and license. Trijnsteltalk 16:38, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And ✓ Done by Hanay. Trijnsteltalk 16:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Graham Gold.jpg[edit]

request un-deletion.

 Not done Copyvios, with no reason given for undeletion. -FASTILY 23:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:steveClassical.jpg [edit]

I have permission from the artist himself to use the photograph for his Wikipedia page. You may contact him at stevedadaian@gmail.com --Ajx292 (talk) 01:39, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 04:54, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:The Hymek manoeuvre logo to undelete.jpg[edit]

The Hymek manoeuvre official logo. I am a member of The Hymek manoeuvre therefore I do have rights to this image hence why it was uploaded by me. I want it to be published in order to educate people about the band as there is a train and medical technique that sound similar and we want to educate people about who we are. Our name is linked to the locomotive because it was built in the area we live in. If undeleted I will add this information into the description.

kind regards,

The Hymek manoeuvre

14:35 02/06/2013

If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 01:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Example.jpg Restore pages please[edit]

Reason: Kiriorigami is a Japanese paper craft hobby name and a book of Kriorigami ("Three dimensional insects kiriorigami ") was published in Japan 2009. "kiri" means cutting and "origami" means folding paper. Most simple style is making any image with cutting and folding paper without glue. Using scissors, "Kiriorigami" become easier and more free than traditional "origami".The pages (photographs) prove the charm and the easy techniques clear. The three photographs uploaded are used under the permission of the each artist and the other 3 three photographs are my works. These pages should restored to tell the charm and the difference "kiriorigami" and "origami (or "kirigami").

Procedural close. The DR cites no files to restore. Please make a new request with a URL link to the files you wish to see restored -FASTILY 01:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:2009-05-16 Aue Panorama von der Friedenskirche.jpg[edit]

Habt ihr nicht gelesen, dass das Bild unter das deutsche {{Panoramafreiheit}} fällt? Außerdem gilt als Lizenz {{Cc-by-sa-2.5}}. Wenn ich das vergessen haben sollte, sorry. --44penguins (talk) 15:45, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done: Ja, du hast vergessen eine Lizenz einzufügen. Bitte nachtragen. --Martin H. (talk) 16:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Beirut_building_from_before_civil_war.jpeg[edit]

Hi there,

This photo was delelted with the reason that there are buildings on it, and that we cannot have photos of buildings because the architechts might have copyrights. A legal case should be made for this. If indeed it is the case that photos containing buildings cannot be published it would have huge implications for this website and all media using photos! Thanks for looking into it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:|]] ([[User talk:|talk]] • contribs)

See COM:FOP. In some countries, such as Lebanon, it is not possible to take photos of buildings unless the architect has been dead for a lot of time. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done There is no FOP in Lebanon. -FASTILY 01:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Un-delete Rebecca Lindsey images please[edit]

To Whom It May Concern:

What was uploaded belongs to me (I reserve the copyright to the images) and as such I reserve the right to fair use images. The uploads are realistically useful for an educational purpose since it coincides with what is written about Rebecca Lindsey whereas it is her album cover. All rights and permission are with Rebecca Lindsey to post what belongs to her, which is all the pictures that were up loaded from her website, included the deleted photos.

All photos are freely licensed as well as have been in several public domains for years. These pictures serve as evidence that what was written about Rebecca is in fact true.

Please un-delete these photos as soon as receiving this request and please addwww.rebeccalindsey.net the deleted photos to the write-up about Rebecca Lindsey as soon as possible.

Thank you, --Samantha Beddingham (talk) 04:25, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Samantha Beddingham Rebecca Lindsey Management[reply]


936189_10151695106356369_904312609_n.jpg

533894_10150788728271369_89366685_n.jpg

1275_63651366368_4444_n.jpg

Rebecca_Lindsey_opening_for_Mayor_Bloomberg,_NYC_/_CNN.jpg

OK, you seem slightly confused about our licensing requirements. You are uploading these images to en:Wikimedia Commons - we exist to assist in the proliferation of freely licensed images. As such, we do not allow any fair use images (for that matter Wikipedia does not generally allow fair use images of a living person). There is only one "public domain", and if someone releases an image into the public domain then they are releasing it from all copyright and can hold no say over what happens to it thereafter. The same is true for free licences, albeit with a few restrictions. But the general idea is that if you release an image, you don't control it anymore, you can't say who can and cannot use it, you can't say how someone can use it, or where. Further, just having an image on a website does not release it into the public domain, it just means people can see it more easily. -mattbuck (Talk) 06:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As for the images you uploaded, let me go through them one by one.
That said, I would expect to see most of your other uploads deleted. Put simply, you could be anyone - we've had people claim to be Angelina Jolie before to upload photos. If you are Ms Lindsey's manager, please understand that we are trying to protect your copyright - we can't let people upload promotional photos (or similar) without proof that they have the rights to release. Sure, it could have been Ms Jolie uploading, but it seems unlikely - more likely it's someone who likes her and found some images on google. We have to apply that standard, and I'm sorry you got caught in the crossfire. If you email our permissions team from an official Rebecca Lindsey email address, we can work something out. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:20, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Un-delete Rebecca Lindsey images please[edit]

To Whom It May Concern:

This is not an "of course" copyright violation, as was written. As stated earlier, I OWN THE COPYRIGHT to my album cover. I have since 2006. That is how my album cover is everywhere on the Internet, as it has been since 2006. I put it there. I give Wikipedia permission to post my album cover on to its website.

Any questions or if you need anything else to show my permission to post my album cover that own any and all rights to on your website, please let me know.

Hope that clears this rather frustrating and difficult debate, that should not have been a debate once I said I own it and give permission for you to post it, up.

Thank you,

Rebecca Lindsey

Ms Lindsey, I'm very sorry for all this, but you have to understand we are trying to protect your works from people impersonating you. We get that happening all the time - people see an image on Google and think that because it's on the internet it lacks any copyright restrictions. Please email our permissions team from an official email address and we can get this sorted. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Un-delete Rebecca Lindsey images please[edit]

I, Rebecca Lindsey, being of sound mind and body, own the cover picture of my album. In 2006 paid a photographer to take my picture for my album cover. I bought the copyright to the picture when the picture was taken. I own this picture and I may post it wherever I choose, including, www.rebeccalindsey.net, Amazon, Yahoo, Facebook, MySpace, etc. This picture is all over the web in several public domains and has been since my album release in 2006. Wikipedia has my permission to post my album cover on its website. No liability shall be held against Wikipedia in regards to this photo of me. Rebecca Lindsey--Samantha Beddingham (talk) 07:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose There are two problems with this. First, "Wikipedia has my permission to post my album cover on its website" is not a sufficient license for Commons or WP:EN. We require a license to use the image anywhere for any purpose, including commercial use and derivatives. Second, Samantha Beddingham is not Rebecca Lindsey. We will need such a statement from the actual copyright holder using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Lindsey, if that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 22:40, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dr. Abdulmumin Jibrin.jpeg[edit]

I am shocked by the deletion of this file because it clearly doesn't violate any rules. I'm a reputable freelance writer who takes several pictures at events where expectedly a lot of journalists are present to take similar pictures or perhaps similar postures. So the fact that a magazine had used an image used by me doesn't mean I'd violated your policy or I wasn't the rightful owner of the work. The work is truly mine and I was sad that it was deleted which impinges so badly on my credibility. Therefore I want to humbly ask for reinstatement and quick activation of the effect undeletion operation on my image. Thank you. AndrePower Andrepower (talk) 09:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 22:40, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tonye Princewill.jpeg[edit]

I feel really so embarrassed to be linked with copyright violation over an image that is genuinely mine. The image in question was taken at a public event where several photographers were gathered which afforded everyone the right to take as many pictures as possible without any restriction on the pictures taken because it was a public function. Since I wasn't the only photographer present at the event I would expect similar picture to be used or seen at other places and for different purposes but that doesn't mean I wasn't the rightful owner of the material uploaded on this site. So please I hope you will understand that picture of public figures taken at public event by several people (who are legitimate owners of what was taken with their cameras) could be used at different places and platforms. So on that factual note I politely ask that you undelete the image as quickly as possible. Thank you Lekantodu (talk) 09:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These appear to be very similar, so I have put them together. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 22:40, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File: Flavour's Blessed Album Artwork.jpg [edit]

The image is to promote Flavour's Blessed Album. It is not a plagiarized work. Please restore it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Versace1608 (talk • contribs) 13:21, 3 June 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Aside from the fact that, as you say, it may violate Com:Advert, it is plainly a CD album cover and not your own work, as you claim. There is no evidence that you have the right to freely license it on Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Copyright violation. -FASTILY 22:40, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gone with the wind Leigh and Howard.jpg [edit]

I believe the following files were mistakenly deleted:

They were deleted as per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by User Aylaross and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by User Rossrs on the basis that the trailer includes a copyright notice, with a link to this specific trailer. The problem though is that this is not the original theatrical trailer. It is the trailer for the 1961 reissue, clearly indicated 10 seconds in by the big writing scrawled across the screen: "Saluting the Civil War Centenary". There is also a fresh voice-over proclaiming it the winner of "ten Academy Awards", which it obvisouly didn't win before being released. The uploader clearly indicated the caps were taken from the original theatrical trailer which didn't include a copyright notice.

Unless we have reason to believe the original uploader was not honest about where he sourced the images, then they should be restored. In any case the deletion rationale they were deleted under wasn't valid, so they should be restored and re-nominated if there are any further problems. Betty Logan (talk) 23:14, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • If the trailer was reissued in 1961, then it means that it was published before 1964. Was the copyright to the trailer renewed? If not, then it shouldn't matter if it has a copyright notice or not. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
GWTW was released in 1939, and reissued in 1947, 1954, 1961, 1967, 1971, 1974, 1989 and 1998, but according to the US copyright catalog no trailer has ever been registered for copyright, although it only goes back to 1954 with the film itself being re-registered back in 1967 (after its 28 year term). The trailers themselves are often updated for the purpose of the reissue such as Civil War centenial, the cinescope reissue, the 50th anniversary etc, although they have a lot of common footage. Betty Logan (talk) 02:34, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Were these deletions an instance of us trying to be more Catholic than the Pope? US copyright laws underwent several key changes in the 20th Century, correct? At one time nothing was copyright, in the USA, unless it bore an explicit copyright notice -- correct? At one time copyrights had to be renewed, to remain valid, correct? Wasn't that at the 28 year point? Wasn't it a big hassle? Wasn't that why the copyright of It's a Wonderful Life and tens of thousands of other Hollywood films were allowed to fall into the public domain? Aren't all these images from the period when images weren't copyright without an explicit notice? Aren't all these images from the period when the copyright on images had to be explicitly and tediously renewed? Geo Swan (talk) 15:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done per Betty Logan -FASTILY 21:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Portrait of Nello Puccioni, 1902 by G. Costetti.jpg[edit]

This painting is my proprety, and has been in m family ever since it was made that is 1902, over 100 years ago!! Nobody can claim copyright on the painting. The photograph I have taken personally. So there is jus no way there can be a copyright violation!!! I am curious as to how there could be an issue, pleas explain. vanni Puccioni (the nephew of Nello Puccioni) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanni Puccioni (talk • contribs) 20:44, 1 June 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose I disagree. The fact that you own the painting is not relevant. It is almost certain that the copyright to the painting belongs to the heirs of the artist, Giovanni Costetti. Since he died in 1949, the painting will be under copyright until January 1, 2020. Your photograph is a derivative work and infringes on the copyright. The only way it can be restored to Commons is if we receive permission from the artist's heirs using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 01:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hrm. By today's standards, the copyright of a painting actually remains with the author, even if the physical copy is owned by another. Per it:Giovanni Costetti, the author of the painting died in 1949, so the copyright of the painting will not expire until 2020 (The January 1 following the 70th anniversary of the author's death). Italy's law does give strong portrait rights to the pictured person, which are separate from the copyright -- per the current law (articles 96 through 98), the pictured person's heirs can cause a photographic portrait to be used without permission of the author, but automatic payments need to be made to the author (Costetti's heirs presumably) for any commercial use. That section is specifically for photographic portraits though not paintings. I did say "by today's standards" because I don't know what the legal situation was in 1902 -- if by the law of the time, the copyright of the commissioned portrait was owned by the person who commissioned it, then later law changes would not have changed that -- the pictured person's heirs would then own the copyright and have the rights to license it. But the copyright definitely still exists. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, per above. The painting will be protected by copyright until 2020. -FASTILY 21:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Haarle[edit]

Category:Haarle was a disambiguation category (cf. fr:Haarle, nl:Haarle and nds-nl:Hoarle). In my opinion it is needed because, as yet, it is unknown whether Category:Trekshoes, Haarle is in Hellendoorn or Tubbergen. Some pseudonym seems to be unaware of the geography of Overijssel. That's OK, but then they shouldn't use their admin privileges to "win". --80.114.178.7 21:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ehh, yes. Made that an undeletion request for Category:Trekshoes, Haarle too. --80.114.178.7 21:26, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Trekshoes, Haarle is a faulty name, this place does not exist. --Foroa (talk) 01:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the name would be "faulty" (for which you offer no proof), the 4 pictures of "Trekshoes" would still depict the same farmhouse. The place (the farmhouse) does exist: it is far easier to take 4 pictures and make an error in the name of the farm, the street, or the hamlet/village than to fake those pictures. According to https://www.google.com/search?q=%2229+May+1965%22+Netherlands+site:commons.wikimedia.org H. Hagens visited Hezingen (in Tubbergen) the same day. I'd rather trust the person who took those pictures than some keyboard warrior. --80.114.178.7 23:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Already done -FASTILY 21:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Maracana Stadium aerial april 2013.jpg[edit]

All Maracana pictures are available in the Brazilian Government webpage http://www.copa2014.gov.br/

All pictures and text are available under Creative Commons 3.0

--Gabriel arisi (talk) 00:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your link doesn't work. -FASTILY 01:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close: marking as an inactionable request. Please make a new request, but specify a working link, thanks -FASTILY 21:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Didier Pollefeyt.jpg[edit]

File:Didier Pollefeyt.jpg

I asked didier pollefeyt by mail whether the file - that was made public on his own site and the site of the faculty of theology (KULeuven) - might be used on Wikipedia.


Theology002 (talk) 09:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 21:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Deletion requests closed without a comment (2 June 2013)[edit]

It was deleted by User:Fastily saying that it is "Empty category". But it was only emptied by User:FSV. At the very least that is dishonest. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 15:47, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose - this cat doesn't make sense IMHO - Jcb (talk) 16:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Restoring an empty category does not make sense. If there is something to sort into this category it can be created again. --Martin H. (talk) 16:25, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was not empty just 7 minutes before it was deleted. It was emptied by the bot of the deleting admin. Read things you reply to! Sinnamon Girl (talk) 16:39, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the emptying. I see no additional value of having this cat. Jcb (talk) 17:11, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You said before (16:24, 2 Jun) "this cat doesn't make sense IMHO". I see no additional value in you showing your lack of imagination twice. Aren't you one of the admins who often "forget" to add a comment. If so, please add comments when you delete, not here. --80.114.178.7 23:15, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
$10 or a beer on me that 80.114.178.7 == Sinamon. 2600:1013:B021:47CB:140A:E1D1:F607:350C 01:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Although this comment is disruptive in nature, this user does have a valid point here. I have some reason to believe that Sinnamon is actually a sock of a banned user, and I'll be discussing this with a CU shortly. -FASTILY 02:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ceckuser isn't for fishing, and you didn't post at Commons:RFCU[4]. Which checkuser is your meatpuppet? --80.114.178.7 00:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lol o rly? This odd pattern of defensiveness is interesting. Anyhow, please do continue digging yourself a deeper grave -FASTILY 07:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please publicly ask for that checkuser or stop your baseless insinuations. --80.114.178.7 09:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I take that bet. --80.114.178.7 00:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This says a lot about how we handle deletion of categories. Obviously the history of the category won't show that it was once populated and recently emptied, so admins deciding whether to delete it only see that it's empty, but emptying a category and then requesting its deletion because it's empty is sneaky and we should discourage it. As to this particular category, I can see the use of tracking comment-less DRs if that's not already done, so I'd have no objection in principle to re-population and undeletion/re-creation. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use? Um, there is none, unless you think of it as providing artillery to further the harassment and belittlement of our contributors. And yet people wonder why editors are leaving WMF projects in droves. -FASTILY 02:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose If you go through Commons:Deletion requests/Old, my guess is that you'll find atleast 5000 DRs closed without a comment. Before the above cat was emptied, it contained a little over 100 DRs. I think the emptying of the category as "useless" was justified. I personally close nearly all my DRs with no comment because of their simplicity. I would point out that this is in-line with policy, which states: "In many cases, where there is little discussion and no disagreement with the request, no details are required." I don't see why we need a category to collect and monitor DRs closed according to policy. Again according to policy, the closing admin should be asked about any DR where the outcome is questioned. A DR can also be re-opened or brought here if needed. Also, I disagree with the above claim of dishonesty. There's no secret that FSV is an alternate account of Fastily, so it's not like he was trying to hide his actions. INeverCry 16:44, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Discussions about sense or nonsense of a category, or discussions about empyting or re-populating of a category is nothing to bother COM:UDEL with. If there is content in there it can be created (the source code was [[Category:Sorted deletion requests]]__HIDDENCAT__). --Martin H. (talk) 16:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The category was emptied and deleted as a useless category for a reason. I don't think it should be re-created. I'd like to see or start a discussion at COM:AN if there's intent to re-create this and re-populate it, and the discussion can't be continued here. INeverCry 17:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
AN is Administrators Noticeboard. This is not about asking admins to notice something, it's about undeleting (and hopefully continuing to populate) the category. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 17:15, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your category unnecessarily monitors a standard admin action. There are procedures in place, as I've stated above, if a closure is questioned. Do you intend to populate that category with all the DRs closed without a comment? My estimate of 5000 is very conservative; the number is likely above 10000. Deletion policy allows for no-comment closures of simple DRs, so what is the purpose of an indiscriminate category like this? If you question the validity of a close, you should question the closing admin. If this doesn't resolve the issue, the DR should be re-opened or brought here. INeverCry 17:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

10,000 is way low. I'd guess that I myself have closed 10,000 DRs without a comment, probably many more. As INC has correctly said, policy is perfectly fine with that. At least half, maybe 2/3s of all DRs are very simple and obvious and require no comment. Creating this category and putting some, but not all, qualifying DRs into it, invites abuse. If one wanted to start a vendetta against Admin X, it would be easy to put all his no-comment closures into this category and then claim that since he was the largest offender in this way, he should lose his Admin bit. I think such a category is an inappropriate waste of our resources. I agree completely with Fastily's action. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this paranoia coming from? Has something like this happen? We already categorise DRs and something like this has never taken place. User:Mattbuck for example has a very large interest in populating Category:Nudity and sexuality-related deletion requests, but it is very clear that he does all within the policy, so there will never be a successful deadminship on that ground (in fact mattbuck helps out quite a lot by taking 10 extra seconds to categorise all his DRs himself). Sinnamon Girl (talk) 01:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not paranoia, it's an application of practicality, which you are obviously incapable of comprehending. You're creating a problem where there is none, and this 'wastes everyone's time. I think the real problem here is not this category, but rather you and your unhelpful contributions. 2600:1013:B016:3CC1:CC44:A427:EF12:BC3 02:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Strong oppose I stand by my original reasoning. I could not agree more with the opposes above; it's a horribly useless category with the sole purpose of creating disruption to prove a point. We literally have hundreds of more important things to do on Commons than to search for solutions to non-existent, idiot problems. -FASTILY 02:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The way categories are implemented contain terrible weaknesses.
  1. There is no convenient way to determine whether a category ever had elements in the past;
  2. There is no convenient way for the contributor who added the element to the category to justify why it belongs;
  3. It is (unfortunately!) traditional for contributors to decide an existing category has a bad name, to create a new parallel category, and to empty all the elements from the first category into the new category -- without ever seeking the opinion of any other contributors.
  4. There are bots, like Siebot, which are used to transfer all the elements from one category to another category -- which do not leave meaningful edit summaries, so individuals seeking an open and transparent explanation for the recategorization have nowhere to turn.
  5. It is (unfortunately!) traditional for administrators to delete empty categories, on sight, without any thought that they might have been emptied due to vandalism, or due to an ill-advised hijacking.
  6. When contributors do initiate discussions over choices of category names, those discussion can remain open for years.
Addressing the first two weaknesses requires a rewrite of the wikimedia software. However, the remaining weaknesses can be addresses without a rewrite.
  1. Can we make a greater effort to educate contributors not to empty the elements of existing categories into new categories, without calling for discussion first?
  2. Can we suspend Siebot, and other similar bots, until they are rewritten so they leave edit summaries that provide an open and transparent trail to the human or discussion behind the recategorization?
  3. Can administrators stop blithely removing empty categories. As a stopgap, surely a simple tool could be written that could check to see if the category had recently been emptied? Administrators could use that tool to make sure they weren't deleting valid and useful categories that had been emptied in a questionable manner?
  4. Can we go back and close all those discussion in a timely manners?
Some people above have suggested the individual who initiated this discussion may be a sockpuppet. If true, that would be irrelevant to me, so far as this discussion is concerned, as even a stopped clock is correct twice a day, and I think the initiator has raised a very important point. Geo Swan (talk) 16:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore -- and reverse the emptying of this useful category.
Some rogue administrators used to never explain their closures.
Some administrators usually explain their closures, but skip this step when they think the rationale for their closure is "obvious".
In my opinion every closure should have an explanation.
First, this is a world-wide project. What we think is obvious is actually highly culturally relative, so, as I wrote in a wikipedia essay, Nothing is "obvious". If the closure is truly simple, then it should be a simple matter to leave a closing explanation of the form, "as per Commons:SomePolicy#Subsection".
Second, what seems "obvious" in the moment can seem opaque, months, or years later. If I had a nickel for every time I asked an administrator to explain a past closure where they skipped adding an explanation, and found they could no longer remember their reasoning... Geo Swan (talk) 16:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Current deletion policy, which I've cited above, allows for closures without comment. This category would potentially have 20000 or more DRs in it. How would such a huge indiscriminate category be helpful? Also, it would definitely not be a "simple matter" to include a rationale in every DR as you suggest. We only have a handful of admins closing DRs on a regular basis, and so adding a rationale for each simple close could mean hours of extra work each week for closing admins. INeverCry 17:19, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
& what a tragedy it would be, if admins actually had to take more time & effort to explain their decisions, when performing a CLOSE & DELETE!?' -- with all due respect, you have offered a very poor & silly reason to justify "quickie" closes. Lx 121 (talk) 06:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously know nothing about the work we do and the amount of time it takes to diligently perform said work. This leads me to believe that you are either stupid or ignorant, or possibly both. -FASTILY 08:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we can guess the amount of time it takes to sloppily do that work. For that, I'll take two not-so-random days, let's say the days that 2600:1013:B000::/40 answered here.
  1. diff=97496827 accusing me of being a sock puppet of Sinamon [sic].
    At 201306020229 you restored and redeleted File:Tokyu Corporation Logo.svg
    At 201306020231 you explained that on your talk page
    At 201306020233 you defended your deletion of a picture of Creator:Peter Klashorst
    At 201306020454 you gave a canned answer to an undeletion request
    At 201306020558 you deleted 1 file
    At 201306020559 you deleted around 40 files
    At 201306020910 you deleted Commons:Deletion requests/2013/05/20
    At 201306020911 you removed {{Commons:Deletion requests/Mass deletion request/header}} from Commons:Deletion requests/Keith Ferguson photos
    At 201306020911 you deleted Commons:Deletion requests/2013/05/24 and Commons:Deletion requests/2013/05/25
    At 201306020914 you deleted Category:Deletion requests closed without a comment, which caused this discussion
    At 201306020917 you created User:FastilyBot
    At 201306030143 you answered on your talk page, you restored File:ABDe 4 4 16 Camedo 070209.jpg and apologized for deleting a file which wasn't proposed for deletion, but only mentioned in a deletion discussion
    At 201306030152 you you admitted ("per someone") to be a meat puppet or a borg
    At 201306030155 you deleted around 30 files
    At 201306030156 you deleted 1 file
    At 201306030205 you incorrectly deleted File:HMS Mansfield FL3285.jpg
    At 201306030206 you told you deleted it on Commons:Administrators' noticeboard
    At 201306030229 Special:Contributions/2600:1013:B016:3CC1:CC44:A427:EF12:BC3 attacked User:Sinnamon ("It's not paranoia, it's an application of practicality, which you are obviously incapable of comprehending. You're creating a problem where there is none, and this 'wastes everyone's time. I think the real problem here is not this category, but rather you and your unhelpful contributions.") in a style you might recognize
    At 201306030232 you restored ::F607:350C's contribution and added "I have some reason to believe that Sinnamon is actually a sock of a banned user"
    • Well I have a reason to believe that you owe me $10 or a beer. Unless you prove you're old enough to legally drink beer in the US, I want you to donate $10 to wikimedia.org referring to this edit.
    At 201306030237 you strongly opposed the undeletion
    At 201306030243 you claimed that transparancy would only provide "artillery to further the harassment and belittlement of our contributors" (I wonder what pseudonyms your other contributors use)
    At 201306032249 you gave some canned answers on this page.
  2. diff=97614432 a vote "per above" (when you had voted)
    At 201306042102 you restored File:Christoph Meili 1997.jpg
    At 201306042103 you deleted File:Spomenik Francu Prešernu 1907..jpg
    At 201306042105 you deleted File:Cubozoa Lebenszyklus16b.png
    At 201306042112 you deleted Commons:Deletion requests/2013/05/27 and around 15 files
    At 201306042113 you deleted around 15 files
    At 201306042115 you deleted 1 file and "explained" it ("Deleted, per above. Unclear copyright status")
    At 201306042117 you deleted 3 files and "explained" it ("copyright seems ok, but they are out of scope") even when the discussion mentions "The first photo is used in ru.wiki". You could be right, but in one minute you didn't check much
    At 201306042117 you also deleted another file and explained it as "poor quality, replaced"
    At 201306042118 you kept a page and deleted a page
    At 201306042119 you deleted around 25 files
    At 201306042119 you explained some deletions without a comment (that's what we're discussing)
    At 201306042120 you explained some more ("Unclear copyright status, and definietly not own work")
    At 201306042120 you also kept two file: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Arabic wikipedia tutorial write your first article (1).png, Commons:Deletion requests/File:2x75mm.JPG
    At 201306042121 you deleted 3 files (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kristian Aadnevik profile picture.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kristian Aadnevik profile picture.jpg, and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Persephone Akropolis.jpg
    At 201306042130 you updated User:Fastily/monobook.js and (later) this page ([5])
    At 201306042131 you restored 2 files you deleted before
    At 201306042132 you restored around 10 files you deleted before
    At 201306042133 you restored around 10 files you deleted before
    At 201306042140 you restored User:Fastily/monobook.js
    At 201306042141 you deleted File:Images logo lg.gif
    At 201306050822 you woke up ("You obviously know nothing about the work we do and the amount of time it takes to diligently perform said work")
    At 201306050825 you you give a canned answer ("rm malformed request without any links or valid reason(s) to undelete. Please make a new request if you would still like to see that file restored."
    At 201306050826 you remove 3 files
    At 201306050827 you remove 6 files
    At 201306050828 you remove 5 files
    At 201306050829 you remove 4 files
    At 201306050830 you remove 8 files
    At 201306050831 you tell someone that in 5 minutes you have decided that his/her contributions are out of scope
    At 201306050832 you show that your bot doesn't only destroy.
    • At 201306060127 you haven't edited yet. That's more than a day in which you spent most of your time attacking others, and less time being an admin (sometimes undoing your own errors).
--80.114.178.7 23:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  I withdraw my nomination I think that the category will not be restored, so there is no need to engage in this discussion any longer. The policies seem to be broken, an admin may delete a file or a category while lying about the reason, and then oppose undeletion as if it was the default position. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 10:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - Jcb (talk) 16:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Deletion requests closed without a comment[edit]

Moved/copied to Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/06/Category:Deletion requests closed without a comment rather than closing this discussion, I'll let it "die in the ass" amongst "deaf ears" in this venue as it will be less controversial that way. Penyulap ☏ 01:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Deletion requests closed without a comment

i'm re-opening this request, which was closed by the initial requestor after a rather unfair "barrage" of criticism, almost entirely from admins who work in deletions...

the matter WAS NOT settled in the previous discussion, & the only reason the requestor withdrew their nomination, was from despair @ making any progress in the request.

the discussion was then HASTILY & perfunctorally closed by one of the OPPOSING admins; which is not exactly appropriate.

the initial request to restore is below; i will add my comments separately

"It was deleted by User:Fastily saying that it is "Empty category". But it was only emptied by User:FSV. At the very least that is dishonest. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 15:47, 2 June 2013 (UTC)"

(Edit conflict) I wouldn't be using the word dishonest, that implies an intention rather than a co-incidence, which you have not shown. As such it is a personal attack.
with all due respect; how is it a "co-incidence, when ONE user empties the category WITH THEIR OWN BOT, & then THE SAME USER deletes the category "non-controversially" as empty, USING THEIR USERNAME ACCOUNT?
i mean what? "oops, i forgot i was cheating the rules"?
Lx 121 (talk) 21:26, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lol (to the opps comment, otherwise it's no laughing matter), yes, I am very very sorry LX 121, I was wrong and you were right, FSV, when I look at the userpage is indeed a bot, I didn't know enough about Fastily to know he even had a bot or it's name. I am sorry.
Yes, as I say below, this is sloppy, however, there is the above UDR discussion which clearly enough shows it to be a shit-list that had to die, viewed from that point of view, and I do see all points of view, it was ok if you assume good faith, just sloppy from other viewpoints. I guess it depends on what you *want* to see as to wether you see all points of view, or just hand pick the nasty one. Penyulap ☏ 21:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest labelling the category page with something along the lines of "In many cases, where there is little discussion and no disagreement with the request, no details are required." and "estimates of the number of DR's closed without comment is well above 10,000", links to policy, so on. Then wait 12 months, and re-delete the category based upon it not being used, Like Bart and Lisa Simpson, Bart only wants it if Lisa does, if Lisa gives Bart the category, he won't want it because it doesn't annoy Lisa anymone. I support undelete, only with the labelling stated, as a lovely way to keep people busy doing virtually nothing "Useless busywork" as Lisa calls it, or, if there is merit to the category, they can happily prove it. Undeletion is cheap in this case. Cheap. Cheap. Cheap. Prove me wrong. Penyulap ☏ 21:18, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
i thank-you for your support in restoring the category, but i politely & respectfully object to any attempt to "sabotage" its potential usefulness, but implmenting an unwieldly rename. clearly, ANY rename should be in accord with the category naming-conventions in place @ commons.
that said, i respect your right to have the opinion that you consider the category unuseful, & i politely & respectfully disagree with you about that point. Lx 121 (talk) 21:26, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No no, I am not saying it is useless, I am saying that it's usefulness hasn't been outlined properly, or look at it this way, I think I am at least a little bit smart and I cannot myself understand the purpose of the category myself. If you can explain it to me I would be thankful so I can find a way to implement the category in such a way as it doesn't upset people, but you wholeheartedly achieve the purpose that you are pursuing. At the moment, I can't do that because I can only see the category being used to take a portion of the tens of thousands of discussions and label those belonging to admins that you don't like and pointing to it while playing everyone's favourite game 'wall-o-crap' :D seriously, that's one hell of a fun game, but I don't know if that is why we are all here, I'm just asking, I'm just requesting, please, tell me and help me to understand because I really do want to know, what is this category actually for ? why can't a bot find the tens of thousands of DR's in an emotionless (read harassment-free) and impartial manner ?
Also I am not suggesting a rename, but would even support "Category:Crappy deletes", that was not what I was wanting, I just mean having a blurb at the top, same as many categories have a blurb at the top, to mitigate people misunderstanding the purpose of the category. We know what it is not (or should not be) just need to find out what it IS, to go with that. Penyulap ☏ 21:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. this categorgy was IMPROPERLY DELETED

admin-user:Fastily EMPTIED the category, using a bot, & then performed a "non-controvertial" deletion "BECAUSE THE CATEGORY WAS EMPTY".

that is a naked abuse of the rules

the user wasn't performing a rename, or improving the organization of the category, they were UNILATERALLY DISMANTLING a part of the categorey-schema.

if the user objected to the category, the appropriate action was to add a cfd tag, & post their reasons.

IT WAS NOT APPROPRIATE TO "DISAPPEAR" THE CATEGORY, & pretend that it was a "non-controvertial" deletion.

this was a particulrly innapropriate action FOR AN ADMIN.

& the user STILL doesn't admit any wrongdoing.

the user should be sanctioned for this action, their use of bots should be restricted/CLOSELY-monitored & if it is repeated, and/or if simillar actions are shown in their user history, then they should be considered for de-admin-ing

2 this was an administrative category, for the purpose of keeping track of deletion patterns. it was both potentially useful & non-harmful.

& i find it notable that the objections to the existence of this category ALMOST ENTIRELY come from admins WHO PERFORM LOTS OF DELETIONS; that would seem to suggest that the involved admins object to closer monitoring of their actions, & THAT violates the principle of TRANSPARENCY in the wiki-community.

ESPECIALLY since the operation of this category REQUIRES NO EXTRA WORK ON THEIR PART.

now, here is the kicker:

fastily claims the whole thing was a "non-controvertial" deletion.

IF that's the case (& it would seem that all the supporting deletionist admins agree),

THEN

NO ONE HAS TO "REQUEST" THAT THE CATEGORY BE RESTORED

all one has to do is restore & repopulate it; that way, it is no longer an "empty category".

isn't that cool!? ^__^

& if user:fastily deletes it AGAIN, then they can be cited for edit-warring.

& if any other user deletes it "non-controversially", then we can go back here

OR do an rfc

OR go through dispute-resolution.

on the other hand, if some user wants to cfd it, then we can go through a PROPER DISCUSSION there; which is WHAT SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Lx 121 (talk) 21:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call it improper, I'd call it sloppy. Should have read "a category that SHOULD BE EMPTY at all times". The commons community time and time again has moved to can 'shit-list pages' which, as the creators haven't done enough to show why this is not a 'shit-list' it should be empty AND Deleted. Pretty simple no matter how you cut and tie it. Maybe there IS some purpose beyond harassment, but it has yet to be outlined. Penyulap ☏ 21:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that another consensus of 'delete' is formed first, and that consensus includes the use of the FSV bot to de-cat, and then someone else caps the category in the head, like, if consensus is to cap it's ass as a shit-list. But hey, where are the reasoned arguments FOR the category ? Come on, someone say how this is a useful category please. Penyulap ☏ 21:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


with respect, i don't understand why you consider a category used to track uncommented deletions to be either a "shit-list", or "harassment"? o__0
to me, it's a matter of tracking operations @ wmc.
it's useful to be able to see how many "uncontested" deletions there are (or deletions closed without a comment by the closing admin, or etc.).
it's useful to be able to assess the quality of past deletion activities, & to discover when & where we have problems...
it's useful to have this information at hand, when having discussions about deletion policies and/or user problems, etc....
we have simillar resources for other areas of operation, so why not here?
that said, i wouldn't object to moving all such functions over to the toolserver, IF toolserver was set-up for that, & IF the wmf wasn't ass-deep in the middle of making a huge mess out of our toolserver, but i digress...
Lx 121 (talk) 21:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh ok, I get some of that, and actually I agree that things like 'uncontested deletion' are certainly a problem, in cases where anyone nominates any image for deletion and it is then deleted because nobody objects, that is something against the charter of the project, (and a good reason why en.wiki is failing). We do need that addressed.
The other objectives I think you would fail if you try to do this manually, I agree with you that an automated process is required. I can't see anyone categorising them fairly unless they are going to do ALL deletions from a particular date forward, rather than play 'follow their favourite admin', I'm sure you can see that someone may possibly misuse the category. An arbitrary or automated approach would be better.
On the other hand, can we skip forward, and see that there are problems, just to assume that there are, and ask ourselves, "What do we do next" what do we do about it, what changes can we make to improve the situation and make proposals about what to do. Thing is, if nobody is disputing that the problems exist, then we may not need to prove the problems exist or how large they are, we can just fix things right now. Penyulap ☏ 22:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I'm not a real fan of the category, but I do strongly oppose people unilaterally emptying a category and deleting it "because" it was empty. We have places to have the discussion.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moved/copied to Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/06/Category:Deletion requests closed without a comment Penyulap ☏ 01:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment Since my comment was requested I will post here. I have realised that I chose an incorrect name for the category, in fact there should be two separate ones: 1) Category:Deletion requests closed with no discussion (for those that have only the nominator and the closing admin) and 2) Category:Deletion requests closed without a closing comment (for those that admin has closed without clearly specifying a reason). Therefore, since I doubt that Fastily will restore the damage and it will still take time to begin repopulation it makes little sense to restore the category with the ambiguous name. Finally, I do not understand why people say (sometimes in the same post) that both are within policy and that it is a "shit list". Sinnamon Girl (talk) 02:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In a nutshell, INeverCry and Jim are giving estimates of 10,000 and 20,000 items for the category, people are suggesting it would need a bot to fill it, and that is without answering the primary question, which is what purpose can it serve, or rather, what on earth can we do with 20,000 items in a category ? do you want someone to go and do anything with them ? what ? It is more useful to people who are making collages to categorise the images on commons into red, green, and blue images, but where is the demand ? So you have only one thing that you can do with the category, that is, fill it manually, which suggests people shall focus upon their least favourite sysop, who is doing what they are supposed to be doing. After all, didn't someone quote policy pages as saying no comment is required ? Penyulap ☏ 03:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would appreciate a help of a bot. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 03:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion has been moved to Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/06/Category:Deletion requests closed without a comment. -FASTILY 03:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fichier supprimés sous raisons de manque de Licence "own work" alors que issu d'archives de la famille propre de la personne concernée sur la page[edit]

File:Bauchet Moteur.jpg

File:Moteur H.Bauchet.jpg

File:Bauchet Motochenille.jpg

File:Bauche10 (1).jpg

File:BAUCHET ARD 24 VITICHENILLE.jpg

File:Bauchet-Tracteurs.jpg

File:Tracteur ARD24 Bauchet.jpg

File:Tracteurs Bauchet.jpg

File:Bauchet tracteur mixte 20.jpg

File:Signature Henry Bauchet.png

File:Henry Bauchet.jpg

File:Tracteur Mixte 15 Bauchet.jpg

File:Bauchet tracteur vigneron.jpg

File:Bauchet.jpg

File:Moulin des isles aprés 1907 et conversion en usine électrique.jpg

File:Interview H.Bauchet 1965 Nice Matin.png

File:Société des Automobiles Henry Bauchet.JPG

File:Henry Bauchet - 5CV Lessieux-Bauchet Rethel (Ardennes, France) 1900.jpg

File:Groupe moteur Scie Bauchet "Gloppe".jpg

I ask you the undeletion because it has been said that old picture can not been licenced as "own work" wherhas they are directly coming from the family album of the man the page is about. so as the family owning personnaly this picturs, we have the licence of them, all the pictures about him and his work i have uploaded and listed here are the proprety of my familly, and may grand mother, daughter of Henry Bauchet, owning all them as the file about the man, his work and this period.

In French, if anyone would have a discussion with me, i would be happy to explain them how i and we as familly have the personnal licence of this old pictures. If i need to put the item "personnal ol picture" i would be happy to do it, but they wer no choice like this on the upload process. Thank you for your help and undeletion as soon as possible, regarding the work of research done by the descendants of the man, and in the time i have spend in uploading them and explaining them, and all wikipedia wontribution. Thank you -unsigned message by ABarr 5 June 2013 23:53

ABarr, I think the easy thing to do here is read Commons:OTRS and email a form in, then once it is processed, everything would be un-deleted and you can add the OTRS template to them which would make it very very unlikely that they'd ever be deleted again. Penyulap ☏ 01:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What Penyulap said. Please email COM:OTRS -FASTILY 03:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ethan Zachery Scott.jpg[edit]

I, Ethan Zachery Scott, authorize the use of this image on Wikipedia. I uploaded this image originally to the internet, I am the owner, and I grant permission for it to be used freely.

--Jss1857 (talk) 01:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC) 6/5/2013[reply]

If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 03:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jason Thomas Scott[edit]

Jason Thomas Scott is the owner and original uploader of this image. He has granted full permission for it to be used freely on wikipedia and all internet sources.

--Jss1857 (talk) 01:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC) 6/5/2013[reply]

Hi Ethan, you don't post it here, you send it by email, once you send it you can mention that you have sent it, and if the file is un-deleted you can mark the files with OTRS pending, and then you can mark the files with the otrs number later when you receive it (unless it is marked for you which is often the case) Penyulap ☏ 01:29, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What Penyulap said. Please email COM:OTRS -FASTILY 03:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

andre-schulz.jpg [edit]

Wir (der BDK) sind Rrechteinhaber am o.a. Bild, siehe:

https://www.bdk.de/der-bdk/wer-wir-sind/bundesvorsitzender/andreschulz.jpg

Please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 00:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:UST CSGC Logo for Facebook Fan Page.jpg [edit]

I created this image. I am one of the officers of the organization this logo represents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thenonhacker (talk • contribs)

Please, send an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org following the instructions of COM:OTRS using corporate email address. --Alan (talk) 13:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What Alan said. Please email COM:OTRS -FASTILY 00:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tz zanzibar-afroshirazi.PNG[edit]

In use at w:ca:Història de Zanzíbar and w:ru:Флаг Занзибара and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tz zanzibar-afroshirazi.PNG does not specify the SVG one would have to use. Without the allegedly worse PNG, it is harder to find the replacement.

Compare Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of Xinjiang-Shicai.gif which was kept even though the SVG was mentioned. Perhaps based on Commons:Superseded images policy#Redundant/bad quality. --80.114.178.7 11:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Support We do not delete superseded images -- only if the PNG was generated from the SVG or something like that; otherwise it is not a duplicate. Commons talk:Superseded images policy. The fact the PNG even was used in articles is enough to keep it, let alone being *currently* in use. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than speculate about whether the file you cannot find is a duplicate or not, 80.114.178.7 could ask where the svg is at on User talk:Antemister
If you don't want to ask Antemister, the image you're looking for has three horizontal colours, black in the middle, blue sky above, green below and a hatchet in the centre. afaik Penyulap ☏ 12:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think I shouldn't have to ask, an image which is in use shouldn't be deleted.
It isn't only about this image, that's why I mentioned Commons:Superseded images policy#Redundant/bad quality. --80.114.178.7 16:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Support No policy to delete an image that was in use. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 14:57, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Happens all the time in use or not. Hey, here is a question, why has nobody asked Antemister about the filename of the svg ? are people trying to fix articles, or just shit stir ? Not that I'm saying that's the purpose here, of course not, you just want a png file, I'm just wondering why nobody would ask Antemister about the svg is all. Penyulap ☏ 21:44, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, why didn't Penyulap ☏ or FASTILY ask Antemister about the svg?
Why didn't they check whether the file was in use? --80.114.178.7 00:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done -FASTILY 00:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files of this list[edit]

All Files have many (hundret or more) usages

User:CommonsDelinker is broken. There are no replacement by Delinker

The articles were not converted to the new files to be used. The bot is defective. --Knochen ﱢﻝﱢ‎  17:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done -FASTILY 00:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:McGuire (Enniskillen Maguire Mag Uidhur) Castle.jpg[edit]

Hello Wikipedia Commons People,

My images have been deleted for no reason at all. I published my photographs on wikipedia commons for public usage and for all to see. I did not infringe upon any copyrights. I believe that the person who deleted my image are like many folks on wikipedia who are a little obsessed with wikipedia and become territorial about the pages they watch. I followed all the rules for wikipedia.org and commons.wikipedia.org, and really, Wikipedia is about the community aggregating data and contributing data together.

The user who deleted my image cannot show and did not show that I infringed upon copyright, because I did not infringe upon any copyright. I own these images and I put them on wikipedia commons for all to use and see.

Please restore my images. Thank you, Greenmcguire — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcguiregreen (talk • contribs) 18:44, 6 June 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

 oppose, for now Because your image has previously appeared on a variety of other sites on the web, our policy requires that you confirm its license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. I know this is a nuisance, but it is designed to protect the copyright holder from having images copied off the web onto Commons by people who claim to be the copyright holder. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What Jim said. Please email COM:OTRS -FASTILY 00:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Olmec head.jpg [edit]

Hello Wikipedia Commons People,


My Olmec image (a photo I took of an important Olmec head at a museum) was deleted erroneously. When I looked for an explanation for the deletion, I saw no reason written - because there is no good reason for my photo of the museum sculpture to be deleted. I request for my Olmec head photo to be restored.

More Info: I published my photographs on wikipedia commons for public usage and for all to see. I did not infringe upon any copyrights. I believe that the person who deleted my image are like many folks on wikipedia who are a little obsessed with wikipedia and become territorial about the pages they watch. I followed all the rules for wikipedia.org and commons.wikipedia.org, and really, Wikipedia is about the community aggregating data and contributing data together.

The user who deleted my image cannot show and did not show that I infringed upon copyright, because I did not infringe upon any copyright. I own these images and I put them on wikipedia commons for all to use and see.

Please restore my images. Thank you, Greenmcguire

If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 00:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Me borraron[edit]

señores wikipedia les informo que las imagenes subidas a wikipedia fueron hechas por mi propio trabajo.por favor pido se me haga devuelta la adiccion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yair Mesa (talk • contribs)

Las imágenes están publicadas de forma previa en múltiples sitios, sin conexión entre ellos y figurando diversos autores. Todo esto indica una clara violación de derechos de autor. Ver COM:L y COM:PCP. --Alan (talk) 19:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Obvious copyvio. --Alan (talk) 19:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Flag of Zanzibar (January 1964).png[edit]

In use at w:ca:Història de Zanzíbar, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of Zanzibar (January 1964).png didn't mention the svg, Ö was friendly enough to propose File:Flag of Zanzibar (January 1964).svg, but the redirect doesn't help the Catalan wikipedia, in fact it makes it harder to resolve the problem (it looks like the image has been replaced by a tiny grey bar).

The SVG changed colours rather drastically at 20 July 2009, and while my Catalan is weak I can see that they talk about the flag at 1964-01-12 and the flag from?after 1964-01-17 (File:Flag of Zanzibar (January-April 1964).png). --80.114.178.7 01:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done -FASTILY 02:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Scumeck Sabottka.jpeg[edit]

Received permission via OTRS. See ticket. (in german).--Wdwd (talk) 13:55, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done INeverCry 16:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:CA Guaraní.png [edit]

La denuncia de violación de los derechos no procede --Yashyn1896 (talk) 17:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done copyright violation. Non-free logos are prohibited on Commons -FASTILY 02:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hypsugo-savii-Pag.JPG[edit]

Hi! The photo was taken by my daughter Ana Jančar (anajancar@gmail.com), who agrees to publish it to Wikimedia under conditions stated when photo was uploded.

Best wishes, Tomaž Jančar

--Podmejc (talk) 19:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 02:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Qing Dynasty Dish with dragons.jpg[edit]

Hi,

My file was deleted from commons without any reason/rationale by User:INeverCry. I have uploaded my own version with appropriate license, so previous nomination was completely immaterial.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Qing_Dynasty_Dish_with_dragons.jpg

BurgererSF (talk) 22:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Top revision restored. -FASTILY 02:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:GPN-2002-000184.png [edit]

I fell that this page was deleted incorrectly and had vital information

Hello, unfortunately the internet is full of images that have wrong copyright information (some say that they are copyrighted when they are not, many more say they are PD when they are copyrighted). Unfortunately it looks like there is evidence that NASA did not check the status of these images, and thus it is impossible to determine their copyright status. If you have any information that would show that this is created by NASA please state it, if this information needs to be private please forward to COM:OTRS. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 03:31, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This page is missing evidence of permission and verifiable source information. Unless we know in certainty that this file was indeed by NASA and is freely licensed, we cannot host it. If you can prove otherwise, with tangible, written evidence, send an email to COM:OTRS. -FASTILY 19:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Port Towers.jpg[edit]

This file demonstrates only half of building. It's not violation of legislation. Please, recover this file. Vita86 (talk) 05:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done There is no FOP in Azerbaijan, and yes, this is very applicable to 'half' buildings, and even 'quarter' buildings -FASTILY 19:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Port towers and residence model.jpg[edit]

This file demonstrates model of the buildings. This model have been publically exhibited for acquainted purposes. Moreover, there is no point about prohibition the model in the Freedom of panorama#Azerbaijan Vita86 (talk) 05:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Non-free derivatives are strictly prohibited on Commons -FASTILY 19:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Abbas al-Musawi.jpg [edit]

I dont understand why this file had been deleted. It had been published in Flickr with a right license (cc-by 2.0), with the shot been made on the streets of Baalbek, Lebanon, on October 13, 2008. Leoboudv claims that it is a derivative file, but do not provide the original file or any proof of that. I had found another Flickr copyrighted photo of the same banner, but its clearly not the same shot as the other one, see the date of the shot (December 29, 2008) or the fact that this latter one had been made from the inside of a car (the car glass window is clearly seen). Im not an expert on Commons and its rules, but I dont see where the problem with this file is. Regards, --HCPUNXKID (talk) 14:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Check out COM:DW. Non-free derivatives are absolutely prohibited on Commons, regardless of what the Flickr license says. -FASTILY 19:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lion of Judah wheel.PNG[edit]

File:Lion of Judah wheel.PNG is in use at pl:q:Reggae. --80.114.178.7 16:00, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done -FASTILY 19:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Deutsch-ostafrika-fahne.JPG[edit]

File:Deutsch-ostafrika-fahne.JPG is used at ca:Teatre d'operacions d'Àfrica oriental (Primera Guerra Mundial), User:Flag Dude (but they have many flags), cs:Německá východní Afrika, cs:Tanganika (země) &c., more than 50 in total (many at "nl:Lijst van landen in $YEAR" (list of countries in $YEAR)). --80.114.178.7 18:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done -FASTILY 19:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Batatais FC.jpg [edit]

Boa Tarde,

Estou entrando em contato para solicitar a Revisão da Suspensão da imagem por mim adicionada, pois trata-se apenas do Escudo do Clube, Batatais Futebol Clube, da própria cidade de Batatais, Interior de São Paulo - SP, Brasil, sendo assim, algo público de utilização freqüente, inclusive pela própria imprensa na divulgação de informações do clube e das competições que o mesmo disputa. Por ser um Clube de Futebol, e inclusive de alta visibilidade, suas informações e divulgações de imagens e notícias já caracterizam algo público, e consequentemente por ter este tipo de trabalho, já possui os devidos direitos de imagens acordados com seus atletas e patrocinadores, possibilitando seus devidos usos publicamente.

Sendo assim, fica incoerente e errônea essa Suspensão, então peço por gentileza, a Reativação e Reinserção da devida imagem (Ficheiro).

Obrigado,

Paco Batatais


Good Afternoon,

I am contacting you to request a review of the suspension image added by me, because it is only the Shield Club, Batatais Futebol Clube, the city itself Batatais, interior of São Paulo - SP, Brazil, so something public frequent use, including the press itself in disseminating information and club competitions that the same dispute. Being a football club, and even high-profile, your information and disclosures pictures and news already feature something public, and consequently to have this type of work, already have the necessary rights to the images agreed with his athletes and sponsors, allowing their proper uses publicly.

Thus, this is inconsistent and erroneous suspension, then please ask the Reactivation and Rehabilitation of proper image (File).

Thank you,

Paco Batatais --Paco Batatais (talk) 18:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Unfortunately, non-free logos are prohibited on Commons. If you'd like to use this file in an article at a local wiki, please upload there. -FASTILY 19:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Flag of Zanzibar (January 1964).png[edit]

In use at w:ca:Història de Zanzíbar, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of Zanzibar (January 1964).png didn't mention the svg, Ö was friendly enough to propose File:Flag of Zanzibar (January 1964).svg, but the redirect doesn't help the Catalan wikipedia, in fact it makes it harder to resolve the problem (it looks like the image has been replaced by a tiny grey bar).

The SVG changed colours rather drastically at 20 July 2009, and while my Catalan is weak I can see that they talk about the flag at 1964-01-12 and the flag from?after 1964-01-17 (File:Flag of Zanzibar (January-April 1964).png). --80.114.178.7 01:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done -FASTILY 02:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Scumeck Sabottka.jpeg[edit]

Received permission via OTRS. See ticket. (in german).--Wdwd (talk) 13:55, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done INeverCry 16:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:CA Guaraní.png [edit]

La denuncia de violación de los derechos no procede --Yashyn1896 (talk) 17:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done copyright violation. Non-free logos are prohibited on Commons -FASTILY 02:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hypsugo-savii-Pag.JPG[edit]

Hi! The photo was taken by my daughter Ana Jančar (anajancar@gmail.com), who agrees to publish it to Wikimedia under conditions stated when photo was uploded.

Best wishes, Tomaž Jančar

--Podmejc (talk) 19:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 02:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Qing Dynasty Dish with dragons.jpg[edit]

Hi,

My file was deleted from commons without any reason/rationale by User:INeverCry. I have uploaded my own version with appropriate license, so previous nomination was completely immaterial.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Qing_Dynasty_Dish_with_dragons.jpg

BurgererSF (talk) 22:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Top revision restored. -FASTILY 02:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:GPN-2002-000184.png [edit]

I fell that this page was deleted incorrectly and had vital information

Hello, unfortunately the internet is full of images that have wrong copyright information (some say that they are copyrighted when they are not, many more say they are PD when they are copyrighted). Unfortunately it looks like there is evidence that NASA did not check the status of these images, and thus it is impossible to determine their copyright status. If you have any information that would show that this is created by NASA please state it, if this information needs to be private please forward to COM:OTRS. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 03:31, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This page is missing evidence of permission and verifiable source information. Unless we know in certainty that this file was indeed by NASA and is freely licensed, we cannot host it. If you can prove otherwise, with tangible, written evidence, send an email to COM:OTRS. -FASTILY 19:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Port Towers.jpg[edit]

This file demonstrates only half of building. It's not violation of legislation. Please, recover this file. Vita86 (talk) 05:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done There is no FOP in Azerbaijan, and yes, this is very applicable to 'half' buildings, and even 'quarter' buildings -FASTILY 19:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Port towers and residence model.jpg[edit]

This file demonstrates model of the buildings. This model have been publically exhibited for acquainted purposes. Moreover, there is no point about prohibition the model in the Freedom of panorama#Azerbaijan Vita86 (talk) 05:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Non-free derivatives are strictly prohibited on Commons -FASTILY 19:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Abbas al-Musawi.jpg [edit]

I dont understand why this file had been deleted. It had been published in Flickr with a right license (cc-by 2.0), with the shot been made on the streets of Baalbek, Lebanon, on October 13, 2008. Leoboudv claims that it is a derivative file, but do not provide the original file or any proof of that. I had found another Flickr copyrighted photo of the same banner, but its clearly not the same shot as the other one, see the date of the shot (December 29, 2008) or the fact that this latter one had been made from the inside of a car (the car glass window is clearly seen). Im not an expert on Commons and its rules, but I dont see where the problem with this file is. Regards, --HCPUNXKID (talk) 14:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Check out COM:DW. Non-free derivatives are absolutely prohibited on Commons, regardless of what the Flickr license says. -FASTILY 19:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Deutsch-ostafrika-fahne.JPG[edit]

File:Deutsch-ostafrika-fahne.JPG is used at ca:Teatre d'operacions d'Àfrica oriental (Primera Guerra Mundial), User:Flag Dude (but they have many flags), cs:Německá východní Afrika, cs:Tanganika (země) &c., more than 50 in total (many at "nl:Lijst van landen in $YEAR" (list of countries in $YEAR)). --80.114.178.7 18:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done -FASTILY 19:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Batatais FC.jpg [edit]

Boa Tarde,

Estou entrando em contato para solicitar a Revisão da Suspensão da imagem por mim adicionada, pois trata-se apenas do Escudo do Clube, Batatais Futebol Clube, da própria cidade de Batatais, Interior de São Paulo - SP, Brasil, sendo assim, algo público de utilização freqüente, inclusive pela própria imprensa na divulgação de informações do clube e das competições que o mesmo disputa. Por ser um Clube de Futebol, e inclusive de alta visibilidade, suas informações e divulgações de imagens e notícias já caracterizam algo público, e consequentemente por ter este tipo de trabalho, já possui os devidos direitos de imagens acordados com seus atletas e patrocinadores, possibilitando seus devidos usos publicamente.

Sendo assim, fica incoerente e errônea essa Suspensão, então peço por gentileza, a Reativação e Reinserção da devida imagem (Ficheiro).

Obrigado,

Paco Batatais


Good Afternoon,

I am contacting you to request a review of the suspension image added by me, because it is only the Shield Club, Batatais Futebol Clube, the city itself Batatais, interior of São Paulo - SP, Brazil, so something public frequent use, including the press itself in disseminating information and club competitions that the same dispute. Being a football club, and even high-profile, your information and disclosures pictures and news already feature something public, and consequently to have this type of work, already have the necessary rights to the images agreed with his athletes and sponsors, allowing their proper uses publicly.

Thus, this is inconsistent and erroneous suspension, then please ask the Reactivation and Rehabilitation of proper image (File).

Thank you,

Paco Batatais --Paco Batatais (talk) 18:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Unfortunately, non-free logos are prohibited on Commons. If you'd like to use this file in an article at a local wiki, please upload there. -FASTILY 19:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Abbas al-Musawi.jpg [edit]

I had to make this request again, as it seems no one had consistenly proved that this file is a derivative work, because THIS FILE AINT A DERIVATIVE WORK. I dont think Im asking for too much by simply asking for a proof that this file is a derivative work, as some other editors are claiming. So please show the supposed original file that you claim this file is a derivative work of. Simply as that. Regards, --HCPUNXKID (talk) 23:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The image is a picture of a painting -- whether it is a poster or a larger work, I can't tell, but, in either case, it is clear that the work that is pictured is relatively recent and, therefore, still covered by the copyright belonging to its creator or his heirs. The subject image is a DW of that work.
As a general rule, any image of a created work -- sculpture, painting, photograph, architecture, text, and so forth is a DW and may be kept on Commons only if either the original work is out of copyright or we have a license from the artist. Neither is the case here.
Note that this is the second UnDR by this user on this work -- see 14:24, 8 June 2013. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What? First, the banner shows a photo, not a painting. So you are claiming that the supposed copyright (can you tell who is the artist copyright owner? Because talking about a copyright without knowing the owner is at least a weak point of view) of that banner means that a photo of that banner couldnt be accepted, although it had a free license? If so, there are plenty of examples in Commons of relative recent photos of banners, posters, etc..., for example File:F1000015divinevictory.JPG and lots like this, so I suppose that they should be treated equally, dont you think so?.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 17:27, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And about being the second UnDR is like that because the first discussion was closed so quickly that I dont even had the chance to express my POV. Regards, --HCPUNXKID (talk) 17:29, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We honor all copyrights, even if we do not know who the copyright holder is. The banner clearly has a copyright, so without permission from its creator, it cannot be kept on Commons.
The fact that there may be other images on Commons with similar problems is irrelevant. We have more than 16 million images. I would not be surprised if 1% of those were problems -- that's 160,000 images. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Per Jim. Unless we know in certainty that the banner is freely licensed, we cannot host it on Commons. Until then, it is a non-free derivative work which is absolutely prohibited on Commons -FASTILY 09:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Façade du lycée pilote de Sousse.jpg [edit]

--Jinin15 (talk) 23:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC) It's true that the original photo was from another website but I made many modifications in it so it's now mine, isn't? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jinin15 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 8 June 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Yes and no. It is true that if you make significant creative modifications to any work of art, you may then have your own copyright, but the copyright of the original creator remains. Please read COM:DW..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per COM:DW. INeverCry 21:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:T. Brian Callister.jpg[edit]

Please see ticket 2013050910004697, which contains cc-zero permission for this image from Brian Callister. --UserB (talk) 13:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done INeverCry 22:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Example.jpg [edit]

Ni mmoja wa mapromota wanaokuza mziki pwani,hapa namzungumzia Abdallaza abbas ambaye mkaazi wa Kongowea Mombasa but anafanyia kazi UHOLANDS .Licha ya yeye kuwa nje ya nchi bado anapenda na kukuza mziki wa pwani. Utakubaliana nami kuwa Abbas amekuwa mstari wa mbele kuweka mziki wa wasanii wetu hasa wanaochipukia katika mitandao na kuhakikisha unafika ulimwengu mzima .Promota huyu anawafanyia kazi wasanii kama Whyne p cmb ,Big brown cmb na K town yote — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdallaza Abbas (talk • contribs) 2013-06-09T18:10:27 (UTC)

Are you talking about Commons:Deletion requests/File:Abdallaza Abbas.jpg (where you removed the nominator's rationale) or Commons:Deletion requests/File:Abdallaza Abbas Kenya.jpg (where you didn't comment before deletion)? --Stefan4 (talk) 18:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close: no file linked to UDR. Please feel free to make a new request, but be sure to include the URL of the file you wish to see restored -FASTILY 09:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:tessera_01.jpg[edit]

Estimados:

Favor considerar el desborrado de la imagen File:tessera_01.jpg.

El contacto de la pagina de donde la he tomado me ha dado autorizacion para publicarla.

He enviado los datos y el email con el permiso a 'permissions-commons@wikimedia.org'

La pagina de donde obtuve la imagen es http://www.legiondemaria.cl/biblioteca2

saludos, --Thor1962 (talk) 22:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not restored / no restaurado - El ticket en OTRS no contiene una licencia. Le he respondido el mensaje con mas información sobre las licencias - Jcb (talk) 22:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Example.jpg [edit]

Jonnypistolas03 (talk) 14:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The 3 images you've uploaded so far were Transformers pics from http://www.roadandtrack.com/photos-transformers-4-cars-5#slide-1, where they're credited to Michael Bay. INeverCry 18:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close: no file linked to UDR. Please feel free to make a new request, but be sure to include the URL of the file you wish to see restored -FASTILY 09:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Олег Гонцов.jpg [edit]

Dear Sirs, The file under discussion is my own work! It's not a screenshort. Quite opposite! I used this file for making a clip you are relying... The clip is also me own work!!! It is placed in my own Chanal IMy page) in the site YOUTUBE -http://www.youtube.com/user/Anatoly315 And the adress of my clip in YOUTUBE - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5TjQozFR2s There is no reason to delete the File. Best regards!

This image was deleted as a screencap from http://textspeak.ru/eed0e868448be7b5.html (at bottom of pg). INeverCry 20:03, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done copyvio -FASTILY 09:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lion of Judah wheel.JPG[edit]

File:Lion of Judah wheel.JPG is the admitted source of File:Lion of Judah wheel.PNG, it isn't a "duplicate" like the tag-team Antemister/Fastily claims. --80.114.178.7 00:47, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Oddly, the PNG version was nominated by Antemister at the same time with the reasoning "this is not an official roundell, but a private creation. Out of scope" -- but it's in use so it was kept. Normally we do keep superseded images (I'm unsure a PNG created from a JPG adds much value but I guess it did for someone), so that would argue in favor of keeping the original source image. However I have licensing reservations -- this is a vector-images.com work, which we decided were non-free (as mentioned at {{Vector-Images.com}}). It is marked as being PD due to age, but it would appear to be a modern rendition of the basic arms design, and as such would carry a modern copyright -- the copyright is not based on the general design but rather the specific rendition (unless the design is so simple as to make any rendition uncopyrightable, but that is definitely not the case here). Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done -FASTILY 09:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:RijksmuseumAmsterdam.jpg[edit]

File:RijksmuseumAmsterdam.jpg was in use at [nds-nl wiki], some foreigner changed it 15 April at 15:41 (whether CEST or GMT, I don't know), some other foreigner deleted it at 18:18 and replaced it.

I don't think that an image isn't "in use at a wikipedia" just because someone changed the page a few hours earlier. What's more important, by redirecting the original picture to the allegedly "higher resolution" picture, the nds-nl wiki not only could not check the change, but was (falsely?) let to believe that the two pictures were duplicates. --80.114.178.7 01:58, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Files should never be deleted because they are not in use -- but they can be deleted if they are duplicates. Given the logs on the original uploads[6][7], File:RijksmuseumAmsterdam.jpg was moved to Commons on April 10, 2008, with the (archived version of the) source link here, while File:Rijksmuseum1.jpg was moved to Commons on April 24, 2008 with the (archived) source link here. The source .jpg of both of those links are identical -- i.e. it was the exact same image used in two different places on the original website. The image today is a lightened and enlarged version of that same photo, it would appear -- unsure if someone edited the original, or if they found a larger version elsewhere. These days I think there are attempts to preserve the image upload history when moving to Commons, as opposed to just keeping the most recent revision, so the history can be seen. And perhaps one may want to upload that original to Commons and then immediately revert to the current version, just to preserve some of that history. But unless there is a reason to have the original available as a separate file, it does appear they were duplicates. When those are marked for speedy deletion, and it appears an obvious case, yes that will probably happen quickly. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done File:RijksmuseumAmsterdam.jpg is a scaled down duplicate of File:Rijksmuseum1.jpg. -FASTILY 09:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Flag of Ethiopia (1897).png[edit]

Um... it was the source .png for the .svg and it was deleted as a "bad-quality duplicate", and then *redirected* to the svg, which is not remotely the same file type. It should never have been nominated, and a bitmap should never be redirected to a vector image. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done -FASTILY 23:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

COA from Austria[edit]

All COAs's from this Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wappen at dorfgastein.png

In Austria COA's are public domain. We can apply Template:PD-AustrianGov. You can restore? --Knochen ﱢﻝﱢ‎  03:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Hi Knochen. The design is in public domain, yes. But...
These coats were created (drawn) by someone and are protected by that author's rights. You are free to create them from 0 in pursuance of {{PD-AustrianGov}}. By the way, were not any licensed.
I prefer another administrator to evaluate the case. (I am involved, conflict of interests). Greetings, Alan (talk) 03:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Alan. The files were not only missing license information (which by itself is grounds for deletion) but also re-drawn by someone, making the files copyrighted by that artist. Unless we have written, tangible evidence indicating that these files are freely licensed under a commons-acceptable license, we cannot host them. -FASTILY 08:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Some Files in low quality or SVG is better[edit]

The applicant User:Antemister says that it is a different file better. (That's no reason to delete.) But he has not replaced the files. All times more in use --Knochen ﱢﻝﱢ‎  04:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done -FASTILY 08:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sarah-harrison-LA.jpg[edit]

I am the creator of the website you are claiming the photo came from. I am the developer of the site and have full permission from the client, who is the father of the person in the Wikipedia page. Please tell me what steps I can take to get the image back online.

--Drinuxkembri (talk) 12:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 06:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Stephen Dadaian (classical).jpg[edit]

I was contacted by another user to upload the file since theirs was rejected. They told me after emailing the appropriate people never received a response. I am the original photographer that took this photo in concert. I own the rights to it.

Please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 06:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Vladislav Kurasov 2.jpg [edit]

Hello,

My user name is Aleksandra55. I am requesting undelete files: Vladislav Kurasov 2.jpg and Vladislav Kurasov 3.jpg. I had forwarded E-mail with author permission a few days ago. If it necessary please let me know and I will resend it again. It was permission from the author for 5 images in this E mail.

Thank you very much,

Sasha 

June 1, 2013

Aleksandra55 (talk) 05:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you emailed COM:OTRS? If not, please do so immediately. Otherwise, please be patient. Our OTRS team is very busy at the moment and it may be several days before they are able to process your request. -FASTILY 06:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files deleted in Commons:Deletion requests/Debian logos[edit]

or at least

Reason:

“ The Debian Open Use Logo(s) are Copyright (c) 1999 Software in the Public Interest, Inc., and are released under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License, version 3 or any later version, or, at your option, of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. ”
  • Even the deletion under the circumstants in the past was wrong. But not for any purpose. — This is a usual restriction for logos and can be also enforced by trademark law.
  • Most logos were uploaded again anyway.
  • The linked files may be redirected to the new uploads.

-- Rillke(q?) 14:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done -FASTILY 21:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Family Guy.jpg [edit]

The User High Contrast deleted the image after I putted that I'd be the only one using the file. This user ignored the notice and deleted it anyway. The image was going to be used by me on my user page, the user wouldn't listen. Also, the image is trademarked, if the user didn't notice the trademark logo on the image, it shouldn't give the person rights to delete an image that I was going to use for me. --Archcaster (talk) 15:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Blatant copyvio -FASTILY 21:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Harry Khan.jpg [edit]

I got this Image of google.

 Not done copyvio. --Alan (talk) 21:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Vasconcelos Neto.jpg[edit]

The file is in a public domain in Brazil an can be used. It's a photo from an important person in Brazil.

 Not done Evident copyright violation. This image isn't in PD in Brazil and USA per antique. Alan (talk) 02:10, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:монсон.jpg [edit]

File:Монсон.jpg

 Not done. No text. Alan (talk) 13:11, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:אילנה פרדס - תמונה.jpg[edit]

An OTRS Permission was received Ticket:2013061210004714. Please do not move my request again to Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard. It seems that this page is forgoten. My original request is from 12:20, 12 June. Thanks Hanay (talk) 09:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Restored by Trijinstel. Alan (talk) 13:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kick magnet.jpg [edit]

Personnal plan, made by me. identification to free info.

Why did you delete?

please undelete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Linoavac (talk • contribs) 2013-06-14T14:55:43 (UTC)

 Oppose Out of scope image without evidence of permission. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 22:23, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Logarhitmic_radial_photo_of_the_universe_by_pablo_budassi_9MFK.jpg [edit]

This file is a drawing about observable universe. It was made by me. Its not promotional photo of anything. Its not an album cover. It is in the project scope as it is present in 8 wikipedia articles about observable universe in several languages. Please undelete it. Its my contribution I dont understand why they deleted it. Here is the talk I had whith user who nominated it: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EugeneZelenko#Nomination_of_file:_9mfk_matiasbruno.jpg_for_deletion Unmismoobjetivo (talk) 18:37, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 22:23, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image deleted in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Evans Evans Tours coach, 25 July 2011.jpg[edit]

I've objected to this deletion on the admins talk page, but all they would say was that it was out of scope in their opinion, which is hardly helpful given that's what I was disputing by going there. There was only one other person who wanted it deleted, and I've laid out my objections to their opinion on that admins talk page, ending with this comment]. To repeat in part, contrary to the opinion of that editor, this image is most definitely not too small or too fuzzy to be of use, and his description of it as being merely an image of a 'big red bus' was quite alarming in its level of ignorance (We have thousands of images of big red buses, are they all at risk now? And it's not even a bus, but a coach). The basic facts are that it was large enough and clear enough for two categorisable qualities to be easily identified, namely vehicle model and operator, and in the latter of those cases the image was definitely unique on Commons. Two other categorisable qualities were also available based on location and date, neither of which are currently represented on Commons for this operator in any other image. Given all that, this clearly should not have been deleted for being out of scope, and certainly not when the only delete comment seemed to also be based on the faulty ideas that doing so was OK because I could always go and get a better image (which is clearly not part of the deletion policy, and even so I cannot, as I live miles away and it may not even be replicable due to the time that has passed), and that it wasn't used (clearly irrelevant to deleting something for being out of scope). Ultra7 (talk) 19:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with the this closure. The file clearly does not fall within Commons' scope. The image is small, blurry, unfocused, and could do little to realistically enhance a reader's understanding of any topic it illustrates -FASTILY 11:17, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Example.jpg [edit]

LO QUE HAGO LO HAGO NO ON EL FIN DE TOMAR DEREHOS PROPIOS LOS COMPARTO CON ESTA PAGINA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diego escalante polo (talk • contribs)

 Not done Solicitud sin imagen destino y/o sentido. --Alan (talk) 21:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:David Soussana in 2005.jpg[edit]

OTRS Permissin Ticket:2013061510003479 was recieved. Thanks Hanay (talk) 08:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dr. Judith Ruskay Rabinor.jpg [edit]

Permission granted under GFDL unversioned and CC-BY-SA-3.0 by "Andrew Fingland" in Template:OTRS ticket. LFaraone (talk) 15:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2x ✓ Done Alan (talk) 15:54, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Phillip-Wade-1.jpg No copyright infringement[edit]

I own this photograph and am allowing its release. Please undelete this.

--TsuchinokoCreature (talk) 16:08, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Copyright violation. (A sample source). --Alan (talk) 00:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Обедзинский В.Е..JPG[edit]

This file is a photocopy of photos from an old photo album of the year 1970 Obiedzinski V.E. made ​​by me personally. Vladimir is my brother. Вest regards. Jurij Obiedzinski.

If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 07:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Didier.Pollefeyt.jpg [edit]

I, Didier Pollefeyt, hold all the copyrights of this picture and give the permission to use all these rights for all Wikipedia products.


Theology002 (talk) 06:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 07:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Escudo de la ciudad de Lugo.jpg [edit]

The image is THE ORIGINAL coat of arms of the city of Lugo and I have the rights to use it in Wikipedia. Moreover, the coat of arms in the page of Lugo (Spanish Wiki) isn't proper. --Saurom Lamderth (talk) 15:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you. --Alan (talk) 15:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Nueva bandera de la ciudad de Lugo.jpg [edit]

It's the ORIGINAL coat of arms of Lugo and I have the rights to use it. Moreover, the flag used in the page of Lugo (Spanish Wiki) is nowadays outdated. --Saurom Lamderth (talk) 15:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you. --Alan (talk) 15:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Nuevo escudo de la ciudad de Lugo.jpg [edit]

It's nowadays the ORIGINAL coat of arms of Lugo and I have the rights to use the image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saurom Lamderth (talk • contribs)

 Not done Copyright violation from official notice of Town Hall. --Alan (talk) 15:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Nueva bandera y nuevo escudo de la ciudad de Lugo.jpg [edit]

It's the ORIGINAL coat of arms of Lugo and I have the rights to use it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saurom Lamderth (talk • contribs)

 Not done Copyright violation from official notice of Town Hall. --Alan (talk) 15:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rampi vicesindaco.jpg[edit]

foto scattata personalmente il 25 aprile 2010. può essere che sia comunque già presente su internet perché è circolata su facebook per 3 anni. ma è comunque mia. Cccricri (talk) 11:24, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 20:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Carmen cartel sangre.png [edit]

I have all rights about this picture, I take the photo I made the design. Please take it back--Akitamosotravez (talk) 11:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Search result supports the deletion. --Alan (talk) 18:54, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Nba-deutschland-joint-logo.jpg[edit]

The file above has been deleted for copyright reasons. However, the logo is a joint-logo that has been created by our own graphics department (Perform Media Deutschland). Therefore, I assume that I can use this logo in our own company description on Wikipedia. Please correct me if I am wrong in this assumption.

Best regards.

If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 20:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Harry_Rozmiarek.jpg [edit]

This image is a privately owned family photograph. The subject is my father. I edited this photo and prepared it for publication. Nobody else has the rights to this image.

This image does exist elsewhere on the internet, but it does so without ownership rights.

I freely place it in the public domain according to the terms of the Wikimedia Commons.

Daniel Rozmiarek user ID: danielroz

danielroz@yahoo.com 443.824.4644 Danielroz (talk) 19:24, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 20:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Tiger ali.jpg[edit]

I am requesting that the file Tiger_ali.jpg be undeleted. I am a friend of Mr. Smalls, who is my boxing coach and was the subject of the photo as a young child. I posted the photo with an incomplete knowledge of Wikimedia Commons' upload policies Mr. Smalls owns the copyright to the photo, which is part of his personal collection, and can provide evidence that he does. I posted this request earlier in April but I did not see that it received a reply.

Shettena (talk) 21:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 21:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:De ronde venen vlag.svg [edit]

This file was deleted because someone nominated it for a wrong reason an anonymous person, who did write: "The file is not current. This flag belongs to the old community. Since 2011 there is a new flag.", thats NOT a valid reason for deletion. We've milions of old coats of arms, flags, that are no longer in use. Please put it back. Henk Boelens (talk) 05:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. May be usable. --Alan (talk) 08:47, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:CARTEL DE LAS XLII FIESTAS DEL VINO.JPG [edit]

Este archivo es de mi propiedad, la fotografía es mía y además soy el autor de dicho cartel, no hay por tanto ningún problema de derechos de autor. Chimo38 (talk) 10:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)Joaquin Morales MoleroChimo38 (talk) 10:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Chimo38, como ha comentado Jim, los comentarios se deben hacer en Commons:Deletion requests/File:CARTEL DE LAS XLII FIESTAS DEL VINO.JPG. Aquí solo se solicitan restauraciones de archivos ya borrados y este no lo está. --Alan (talk) 12:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wigbert_Fehse.jpg [edit]

Ich habe das Foto vom Autor des Buches, Dr. Wigbert Fehse, mit meiner eigenen Kamera aufgenommen. Fehse hat uneingeschraenkte Zustimmung zur Veroeffentlichung gegeben.

If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 08:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:KATSU x Minecraft 2.png[edit]

The image used was taken from the FAT labs website <http://fffff.at/> which explicitly states that ALL content is "Copyfree and in the Public Domain; 2007-2012 by F.A.T.. No rights reserved." "do not distribute" in the game refers to game itself not screenshots.

--N4yana23 (talk) 20:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)N4yana23[reply]

 Not done The image is a screenshot of Minecraft a non-freely licensed video game. MorganKevinJ(talk) 00:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please refer to THIS LINK on the Minecraft terms and conditions which state "you're free to do whatever you want with screenshots and videos of the game".

--N4yana23 (talk) 20:03, 22 June 2013 (UTC)N4yana23[reply]

File:PilatesTeacher.jpg [edit]

OTRS permission granted in 2013060910005498. LFaraone (talk) 01:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's never been a file under that title. Can you check what the exact file name is? INeverCry 02:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Logarhitmic radial photo of the universe by pablo budassi 9MFK.jpg [edit]

Permission granted in 2013061510000571 LFaraone (talk) 01:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tried restoring this, but got the following error: "Error undeleting file: A non-identical file already exists at "mwstore://local-swift/local-public/1/18/Logarhitmic_radial_photo_of_the_universe_by_pablo_budassi_9MFK.jpg". INeverCry 02:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, How can I restore the file? Or maybe I can re-upload it under another name? Unmismoobjetivo (talk) 06:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC) I found this googleing the file: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/18/Logarhitmic_radial_photo_of_the_universe_by_pablo_budassi_9MFK.jpg this is and old version of my drawing can you delete it? I really would like to upload the file with a more accurate name. Unmismoobjetivo (talk) 06:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done -FASTILY 08:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rebecca_Lindsey_"Headlights_on_the_Highway"_album_cover.jpg [edit]

Permission granted per OTRS. LFaraone (talk) 01:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done INeverCry 02:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lavalu press HIRES.jpg[edit]

Official Lavalu press photo Royalty free

Photographer: Jimmy Israel

Please undelete thanks!
— Preceding unsigned comment added by BrandedPR-Anouk (talk • contribs) 08:18, 21 June 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose "Royalty free" is not "freely licensed" which is what is required on Commons. In the image description you claimed that this is your own work. Here you claim something else. Which is correct? In order to seriously consider the claim above, we will need to see a free license at the source of the image, so please provide source details. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim --Alan (talk) 16:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Drogaria Araujo Logomarca.jpg - Undeletion Request[edit]

I am requesting the undeletion of this file, because I was given the rights to add it to Wikimedia Commons by the copyright holder, Drogaria Araujo Arquivo Pessoal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clara Kraft (talk • contribs) 13:44, 21 June 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 04:53, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:HarryArnold CD.jpg [edit]

Hi.

I'm the chairman of a musical group (a big band) that is run as a non-profit organization. We made a CD a couple of years ago and contracted a graphical designer for the CD cover. We ordered it exclusively for us, paid for it (owns it) and have the explicit permission from the graphical designer to use it whatever way we want.

I uploaded the file "HarryArnold CD.jpg" and stated the someone else was the origin, submitted his name and that we have his explicit permission to use it. However, we got a notice that the file is up for deletion.

Should I go about this in another way? I can't see how we cannot use our own production but apparently I haven't been able to give the right references or similar?

Best regards, Mats Eklund. Mats.eklund.hemma (talk) 16:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 15:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Map of Indiana State Road 327.svg [edit]

This was deleted as unused at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Map of Indiana State Road 327.svg but now that w:en:Indiana State Road 327 exists it would be used. --Rschen7754 22:00, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done INeverCry 22:39, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Example.jpg Official Photo of Rep. Raul Labrador[edit]

This photo is part of the "Press Kit" on his website, which is available for download: http://labrador.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=123
— Preceding unsigned comment added by LW1986 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 24 June 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose Commons accepts only material that is free for any use, including commercial use, by anybody. "press use" is far too limited for our needs. In fact, there is no license information on the site at all, so even use by the press is unclear. There is certainly no broad free license, such as CC:BY or CC:BY:SA which is what we require. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Licensing is insufficient. See COM:L. INeverCry 15:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Logotip Geopedia.svg[edit]

Please undelete per OTRS ticket #2013060210005714. See also file in SL:WP. Thank U.— M♦Zaplotnik my contributions 10:57, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jim. M♦Zaplotnik my contributions 12:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:vijaygoel2.png [edit]

This is image on public domain , No copy write content. On web you can see these pictures with out copyrights.[1]
  1. ↑ [1], Its personal image on public domain.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Amaratechnofutures (talk • contribs) 11:14, 24 June 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. A copyright notice is not needed for a work to be protected by copyright (not "copy write"). Please read Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Internet images. Furthermore, the page contains multiple copyright notices. At the bottom: "Copyright© 2013 Times Internet Limited. All rights reserved." And if you right click on the image with JavaScript enabled, an angry message pops up and tells you "Use of images without permission not allowed! Contact 'tss@timesgroup.com'." —LX (talk, contribs) 11:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per LX, blatant copyvio. INeverCry 15:47, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bahia X Vitória 2009.jpg and others[edit]

Olá. Não vejo violação de direitos autorais nesta imagem também, até porque a aparição em sites de pesquisa de imagens e em blogs e afins por muitas vezes dissipam e/ou ocultam a fonte original, tornando difícil, quase impossível, descobrir o autor. E quanto aos direitos autorais, gostaria de saber como que várias páginas de vários clubes conseguem publicar fotos nas páginas aqui no Wikipedia sem, no entanto, ter nenhum direito autoral nas imagens. Gostaria de saber como isso é possível. Grato! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinsgomes (talk • contribs) 19:51, 23 June 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

I merged your "individual" requests for all files. You are wrong, beeing able to watch something for free on a website does not mean that it is free of copyright or that you can make copies as you like. See Commons:Image_casebook#Internet_images. --Martin H. (talk) 19:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Martin H. - clear copyright violations. INeverCry 03:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:W Malosetti.jpg[edit]

Este archivo es una foto que me paso el hijo de esta persona; Javier, tomada por su novia Andrea de su padre Walter, para este fin. Crear un articulo en Wikipedia. Gracias — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gelsi (talk • contribs) 20:02, 24 June 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose Since the photo has appeared elsewhere on the web, Commons requires a license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. The watermark says that the photo was taken by "A. Knight". If you are "A. Knight", then you may send the license yourself and the image will be restored automatically. If you are not "A. Knight", then the license must come from him or her. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 03:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

Fie:Super Mario 3D Land okładka.jpg[edit]

The same game cover is put into an english page about Super Mario 3D Land, why it cannot be also put into Polish version? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎RayosPL (talk • contribs)

English Wikipedia allows small portions of non-free content, en:Wikipedia:Non-free content under fair use. There is no such fair use on Commons, see Commons:Fair use. Also the Polish Wikipedia not allows fair use. See meta:Images on Wikipedia. --Martin H. (talk) 23:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done No fair use on Commons. INeverCry 03:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Nils Vesk Smiling.jpg [edit]

Hi there,

Good day.

I was having a problem for a specific image that was deleted. I am actually the owner of the image that was deleted. I was making a profile of a person last week but having problems learning how to create one so I drafted my work first in my computer. The problem is, when I decided today to finished what I started the image is now deleted.

I can try and upload it back but for obvious reasons it would probably would be deleted all over again. Hopefully you would reconsider the image I uploaded so I can finish this one.

More power!

Cheers --Elvandesantos (talk) 03:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)elvandesantos june 25 2013[reply]

  •  Oppose Please do not upload the image again -- Commons never actually deletes anything and the image can be restored for general use if appropriate. Because the image has appeared in various places on the Web, including http://www.lifeslittletoolbox.com/aboutUs.htm, we require an explicit license from the photographer or copyright holder using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. Once that is received and processed, the image will be restored. Please be patient, OTRS, like almost all the rest of Wikipedia and Commons is a volunteer effort and it has a backlog. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 14:43, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Wsvan[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission granted in ticket:2013062110007776 LFaraone (talk) 03:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done INeverCry 03:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Marié Digby - Dream World.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: granted at ticket:2013062210000404 LFaraone (talk) 03:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done INeverCry 03:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1.jpg[edit]

Please restore the first version of this file. It has been deleted due to suspected copyright violation. Android is licensed under the Apache License, so it does not violate Google's copyright. Czech is Cyrillized (talk) 14:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ritaikatata Sararosaisalala Fantomasiasia Wróblewska urodziła się 23.01.1987r szczecin polska — Preceding unsigned comment added by XCczarodziejasailoralinalunalialax (talk • contribs) 19:05, 21 June 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

(the Polish is someone else's unsigned comment) If this is restored, the background image, which may have been selected by the tablet's owner or by Samsung and may be under a different license, will be prominent. I notice that the Wikipedia article about this tablet uses File:Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 (2).jpg which has a freely-licensed background and has more pixels besides (although it does not show any icons). Rybec (talk) 04:06, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Yup, the source code is licensed under apache, but the graphics and background belong to third parties and are copyrighted. In other words, non-free derivative works are absolutely prohibited on Commons -FASTILY 08:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Soc-logo-google-color.jpg [edit]

Undelete request . I don't get it i have sincerely cited the site for it. It is clearly written in my source (http://code.google.com/p/google-summer-of-code/wiki/GsocLogos) for creative common licence. I don't get which part you don't understand . It has been clearly stated clearly creative common license under no derivative work . Well the work is not derivative at all .you can check from here:(http://code.google.com/p/google-summer-of-code/downloads/list?can=2&q=2013+logo&colspec=Filename+Summary+Uploaded+Size+DownloadCount) the file is color version of jpeg format.

The picture is of an open-source program conducted by google itself known as Google summer of code .The thing that might have confused you is that i uploaded the logo of 2013 previously it was of 2012 , so i just uploaded the recent one.

Thanks hope it clears the misunderstanding.

 Not done Non-commercial licenses are prohibited on Commons -FASTILY 08:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gironapromocionaprimera.png [edit]

--Jmsolerb (talk) 19:18, 25 June 2013 (UTC)Jmsolerb File:Gironapromocionaprimera.png la muerte del autor es de hace mas de 70 años --Jmsolerb (talk) 19:18, 25 June 2013 (UTC)Jmsolerb[reply]

 Not done It's life+80 years for works published before 1987. -FASTILY 08:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Windows Phone start screen.png[edit]

The deleted file is not a copyright violation, is a screenshot of a smartphone. The image is being used under a Microsoft licensing (used in a educational brochure). Please undelete the file.

 Not done. Derivative work of copyrighted software. Alan (talk) 00:16, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Oberfläche SAVe (r).tif[edit]

Hello, i have an official permission of the Copright-Owner to use this logo for creating a Wikipedia-Article. And furthermore is it only a screenshot of the application i made.


Thanks for undeletion, --Mod83 (talk) 07:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 08:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:LogoNAKC2.png[edit]

I hereby affirm that i am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of LogoNAKC2.png I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. 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 claimed to have been made by 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. Messaoudi Charles - charles@troisiemecontact.com 26 Juin 2013

--Troisiemecontact (talk) 08:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This needs to be emailed to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org -FASTILY 09:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:DCCI.png [edit]

Dhaka Chamber of Commerce & Industry is a Non-profit organization in bangladesh. Which is working for business development of Bangladesh. I am web developer of Dhaka Chamber of Commerce & Industry. I have the logo and before use this logo I got permission to use this logo to wikipedia. There is no permission problem at all so I don't know why this logo had deleted from wikipedia. I am just a contributor in wikipedia & I love it very much. I get huge number of information using wikipedia. So I think Dhaka Chamber of Commerce & Industry have to be in wikipedia and also with logo. One day this article will be helpful for all people who wanted to know about Dhaka Chamber of Commerce & Industry. A logo is a identification of an organization that's all.

Thanks.

--Alam5131 (talk) 17:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 21:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

Carole Frechette.jpg [edit]

Since this file was deleted, I have received formal permission to use the file on the web from the photographer. I have written permission from the photographer which I can send if requested. He can be contacted as follows:

Claude Dolbec, Photographe. 102 Broadway Montréal-est QC. Canada www.claudedolbec.com

Thank-you. Lorne Huston

If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 08:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gironapromocionaprimera.png [edit]

File:Gironapromocionaprimera.png 70 years death autor (Jmsolerb (talk) 16:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)Jmsolerb)[reply]

 Not done For works published prior to 1987, it's author's life + 80 years. -FASTILY 20:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Amuzeshkade fani mohandesi kermanshah.JPG[edit]

This file has been deleted in 7 march 2013, but this picture is my own work, you can see my history.--Coffeetalkh (talk) 08:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done There is no FOP in Iran -FASTILY 20:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jimmy Carter Library and Museum 90.JPG[edit]

I request the undeletion and proper deletion discussion. Both the nominator and the admin didn't bother to even use a single full world; all they did was to link to a policy without explaining how it applies here. I requested such an explanation but nobody bothered to provide it. As such, I challenge that the linked policy was relevant at all (the nominator should clearly explain how is relevant, not just link some letter soup). As far as I am concern, the only response the nom and admins should receive here is en:WP:TROUT. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose This is a photo of a copyrighted poster. The poster is centered and takes up about 80% of the photo, so COM:DM can't be applied. The description placard at bottom left indicates the poster was drawn in 1980 by Marvel Comics artist John Tartaglione. The poster itself is marked "(c) 1980 Marvel Comics Group". The deletion per COM:DW was correct as this photo is a clear derivative work of a copyrighted poster. INeverCry 16:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per INC. Derivatives of non-free content are prohibited on Commons -FASTILY 20:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Poster oficial de 'El intruso'.JPG [edit]

La obra es de mi creación, por lo cual solicito que no se borre. --Danips98 (talk) 14:11, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 20:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Adelshirazy-Ahmadinezhad.jpg [edit]

its my own work ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlibabaSh (talk • contribs) 16:24, 28 June 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Copyright violation -FASTILY 20:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cory Aquino(CROP2).jpg[edit]

This picture, along with the Andres Bonifacio and Luis Taruc, and Lakan Dula pictures seem to be spread throughout the internet, and neither of them seem to have any copyright specifically placed on them, if they did, then fair use should cover it if Wikipedia is recognized as non-profit.

Especially the Lakan Dula painting shouldn't have any copyright placed on it, besides, there is another one of it available right here in Wikimedia commons.

LakanBanwa (talk) 02:45, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Commons:Project scope, Commons:Licensing and COM:PRP. Files here must be free for reuse by anyone for every purpose, including commercial use. There is no fair use here, see Commons:Fair use. --Martin H. (talk) 02:56, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, if I want to reupload these files again, I need the CORRECT permissions then? Alright. --LakanBanwa (talk) 03:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
HOWEVER, Martin H., what if there are pictures like the Andres Bonifacio one, that cannot be tracked and are spread throughout the internet? As well as this picture of Luis Taruc, it cannot be traced. http://thephilippinesamodernhistory.blogspot.com/2012/05/huk-rebellion_24.html Can I be offered assistance or be pointed towards the right direction?--LakanBanwa (talk) 03:51, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thats why I linked COM:PRP to avoid such assumptions. Point 5 there. Seeing a picture on the internet everywhere does not mean that it is free. --Martin H. (talk) 13:22, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Copyright violation. INeverCry 16:16, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2013-06&oldid=430794618"