Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2013-11

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

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

Matches played at Moses Mabhida Stadion[edit]

These photos were uploaded to illustrate specific FIFA World Cup matches played at Moses Mabhida Stadion, but they were deleted together with other images due to lack of FOP in South Africa. However, it seems to be a common practice to allow pictures of matches played inside the stadia if images are not illustrating much else then stands without notable architectural features — at least this is the result of discussion on the village pump and some examples at COM:TOO#Architecture (although I am not sure it applies to all images of stadia in South Africa due to possibly different TOO). Thus I believe that images of matches should be undeleted even if they are played at non-free stadia, probably by cropping notable architectural features if they are prominent. Thanks — NickK (talk) 23:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose These are broad sweeping views of the whole stadium. The players are de minimis to the architecture of the stadium. In the last of the three, the players are only five pixels high and two pixels wide -- completely indistinguishable. In all three cases, there is nothing to show who is playing or that it is a World Cup event except the caption. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I probably agree with the last one (I did remember that one was a broad view, but in a very high resolution, so it could have been cropped). The two remaining, although not from a perfect position, do illustrate the match (judging from usage, they did illustrate articles about relevant teams), and the fact that players are small is due to the angle of the photo (it is very unlikely to take a photo where players are large from spectators' seats) — NickK (talk) 18:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I don't see the second one, but the first one and the third one are definitely showing more of the architecture than would be considered de minimis. --Eleassar (t/p) 16:16, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think that the architecture (here definitely the arch) is too visible, it is always possible to crop it — NickK (talk) 01:11, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have nothing against reuploading the cropped version. --Eleassar (t/p) 07:49, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think a crop would fail on the grounds that it wasn't useful. As I said above, the players are two pixels wide and five high -- at that size they could be Klingons and you couldn't tell who they were. It's more or less the same size as a lower case i without the dot on this screen. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the last one, as I cannot see the image, I indeed mixed it with another one. I will replace it with another one where the stadium is explicitely out of focus so that it can hardly be distinguished. However, I cannot upload the cropped versions of two first images as the user has switched license of his Flickr stream to All rights reserved, and these images are not available under Creative Commons anymore — NickK (talk) 19:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The new third image is fine, thank you. As for the other two, since we have the Flickrreview tag from the upload bot showing that they were freely licensed, we can put that tag on crops if you make them. Of course it will have to be the same base image, but that's easy to check. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Nickk, if you'd like to make crops, here are the original photos -FASTILY 21:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing as moot. If the copyright elements are cropped out, then the two remaining photos are ok for Commons. I'll host the original files for the next few days if anybody wants to take care of that -FASTILY 09:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have downloaded them — NickK (talk) 16:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mumtaz (actress).jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The image had been deleted a number of times earlier. It used to be restored after the deleting administrator was satisfied with my explanations, which are now also available on the image page. I had taken the photo around 40 years back, when I attended an outdoor shoot of Mumtaz for the film Taangewala. As the photo print had aged quite a bit, I had scanned it over 5 years ago, and had retouched it. Along with my last undeletion request, I had forwarded the scan (the uploaded version) as well as a photo of the actual photograph, to Yusuke Matsubara, who undeleted the image this time. However, the image has been deleted yet again. Please undelete it. Juhi47 (talk) 12:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done: And restored the OTRS permission that was previously removed minutes after being added without real explanation. Hopefully the OTRS template will prevent future issues. Эlcobbola talk 19:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:LaidBackShooting4.jpg[edit]

Please don't delete the Keky's photo because i have all rights to use all material medis for this project

No action: Image has not been deleted; see pending request at Commons:Deletion requests/Images uploaded by User:TheFirstMusicVideo. Эlcobbola talk 19:53, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Physcomitrella knockout mutants.JPG[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The image derives from http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2229/2/6/figure/F4?highres=y was published in the article http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2229/2/6 in the BMC Plant Journal. This scientific journal publishes all material under the Creative Commons Attribution License see: http://www.biomedcentral.com/authors/license. Thank you for you help with this issue Dr. Esra (talk) 19:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • ✓ Done In the future, you can avoid these deletions by putting the relevant information in the image description -- take a good look at this one for the format. You cannot add the {{Licensereview}} tag because you are not an Admin or LicenseReviewer, but you can do everything else. Also, please be sure to use the correct license -- this image had a CC-0, but the actual license on the site is CC-BY. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Graf Von Luxburg.jpg [edit]

Este Archivo es de La autoria Familiar, siendo todos los bienes, emblemas familiares de uso exclusivo de los miembros del grupo familiar Condes de Luxburg, por tal motivo tengo derechos de autor para su uso,--Von Luxburg (talk) 21:53, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 09:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Utwor-tygodnia-2 (allaboutmusic).jpg [edit]

allaboutmusic.pl is my webpage, I created this as a logo of our weekly column

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 09:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Samsung Galaxy W I8150.JPG[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: It was deleted due to copyright issues. I took the picture on my home. Please restore my photo which I contributed to your foundation without license restrictions. 63.251.70.77 11:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC) --Vyker (talk) 11:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim - image is a derivative work of software GUI. Эlcobbola talk 15:36, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:The Quest sculpture, Portland, Oregon 1.jpg[edit]

I'm not sure why this was speedily deleted and without notification on the uploader's talk page. The consensus seems to be that FOP cases shouldn't be speedily deleted. In any case, SIRIS tells that the statue was "Commissioned 1967. 1970" and there is no mention of any inscription, so the statue would appear to satisfy {{PD-US-no notice}}. Also: File:The Quest sculpture, Portland, Oregon 2.jpg and File:The Quest sculpture, Portland, Oregon 3.jpg probably show the same statue, based on the file names. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done and converted to standard DR at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Another Believer. Per this comment, failure to notify uploader appears only to be the result of a move request to en.wiki. Эlcobbola talk 15:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Maha-logo-1-150x150.png [edit]

I tried uploading logo of Government of Maharashtra on Wikimedia Commons but it seems your bot has deleted it..

Please refer to this page on the official portal of Govt. of Maharashtra: https://www.maharashtra.gov.in/1081/Disclaimer-and-Policies , which says "Material featured on this portal may be reproduced free of charge in any format or media without requiring specific permission. This is subject to the material being reproduced accurately and not being used in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context. Where the material is being published or issued to others, the source must be prominently acknowledged. However, the permission to reproduce this material does not extend to any material on this site which is identified as being the copyright of the third party. authorization to reproduce such material is obtained from the copyright holders concerned."

Please help me upload this logo as its my own state that I hail from.. and our Wikipedia page of Maharashtra lacks that logo..

I assure its totally free, but you also make sure by visiting the link I cited above.

Ricky141pnq (talk) 06:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose It is far from free. It fails in two different ways to meet Commons requirements.

  • "This is subject to the material being reproduced accurately" -- that limits the use to an ND license, which we do not permit.
  • "not being used in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context" -- that limits the uses to which the image can be put. A free license would permit the image to be used to mock or satirize the subject.

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done ND licenses are forbidden on Commons. -FASTILY 00:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dr-sanjay-kolte.jpg[edit]

Hi,

I am Dr. sanjay kolte and I have submitted that image by myself. I also make a user page with this image, and I thinks posting of own image does not create any copyright issue. I also believes that my work in laparoscopic and endoscopic surgeries is noticeable. I've successfully completed thousands of surgeries and has tons of experience. So that I think I deserves a Wiki page that's why I've posted my article here. Please consider this application and cancel this deletion.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drsanjaykolte (talk • contribs) 11:11, 31 October 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose I see that you have only seven edits on WMF projects, none of which contribute to the goals of the projects. If your user page on WP:EN Drsanjaykolte were posted here, it would be deleted as a violation of COM:ADVERT. I suspect that it will soon be deleted from there. While our rules do permit one or two personal images to illustrate a user page, this is not Facebook and a user who does not contribute to the project is not entitled to anything. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Commons is not a means of self promtion -FASTILY 00:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Brewer Sports International.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: These images are owned by me, and there are no issues of copyrights. Danielle.berman (talk) 16:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 00:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Inga Neverauskaite Fitness Pro.jpeg [edit]

This photograph is the property of Inga Neverauskaite, for whom I have created the Wikipedia page. She is a friend of mine and she herself gave me the photos and information and asked me to to create the page. The photograph is from a portfolio belonging to Inga that was created for her by Bill Dobbins. She owns the photograph and is at liberty to use it wherever and whenever she pleases. I credited both Inga and Bill Dobbins within the information for the image, so I am not sure why it has been deleted citing copyright infringement as the reason.

--GlennDWilson (talk) 18:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose The image is watermarked with Bill Dobbins's copyright and appears on a copyrighted web page. Bill Dobbins's web page has an explicit copyright notice. In order to restore it to Commons, we will need an explicit license from Dobbins using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. The license e-mail must come from an address at billdobbins.com. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 00:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Überraschungsei.jpg[edit]

Request temporary undeletion If the photo itself is under a free licence (I don't know as the file is deleted) and the deletion was due to the protected packaging only, we can probably move it to German Wikipedia and keep it there. Therefore I request temporary undeletion for the move. (Hope I did everything right, never filed an undeletion request for a file transfer before.) Thanks, Yellowcard (talk) 17:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done temporary to permit transfer of the file to a Wikimedia project --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:The News Journal.jpg[edit]

The file is a personal file, which I designed and converted to JPEG format. Please undelete. --Gbola Adiamoh (talk) 14:46, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose Uploader would have to be both the author of the text and the photographer of the images to be able to assert a license. This is a scanned news page dated October 7, 2013 and images used therein, for example, appeared on various websites well before that date (e.g., this is here (29. June), here (9. September), here (7. June), etc.) Even an OTRS ticket from The News Journal, the purported author, would be suspicious based on the image dating. Эlcobbola talk 15:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Agreed. The image looks like a screen shot, not an original from The News Journal. Our uploader's name does not appear on the Journal's masthead. Both the one image and the Journal's logo are almost certain copyvio's -- the text has unknown status, but is likely also a copyvio. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:19, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above -FASTILY 23:32, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Logo del Parque Nacional Submarino La Caleta.png [edit]

This file is in the public domain because it is Dominicano State Property and is copyright free.

Este archivo está en el dominio público, ya que es propiedad del Estado Dominicano y está libre de derechos.

--KelvisDorville (talk) 03:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

--KelvisDorville (talk) 16:21, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We are talking here about File:Logo del Parque Nacional Submarino La Caleta.png. You cannot add {{PD-self}} to that file because it is not yours to license.
There has never been a file named File: Logo Underwater National Park Caleta.png, so your actual question has no answer. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:51, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Copyvio. -FASTILY 23:32, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mw bennytour newy 01.jpg [edit]

The subject and File:MarkWilkinson LizottesNewcastle 2012.jpg were deleted recently without discussion at the request of the uploader:

The uploader's two nominations did not mention that the subject is a notable musician and that these are the only two images we have of him performing on stage. See Mark Wilkinson (singer) and Category:Mark Wilkinson. We do not generally delete images at the request of the uploader and I think we should not have done so in this case. The license is irrevocable and the images could prove useful in illustrating the long WP:EN article.

I have notified the uploader at User talk:Sja974#Undeletion request.

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:09, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. Contested uploader request to delete. -FASTILY 23:32, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fimpotosi.jpg [edit]

File:Fimpotosi.jpg this is my creation (dercall (talk) 15:55, 3 November 2013 (UTC))[reply]

  • This image has a {{Speedy}} tag on it, but has not yet been deleted. I have converted the speedy to a DR, because it is not obvious that it should be deleted. If you actually created it out of your own mind, then it is personal art, which is out of scope and should be deleted. If, on the other hand, it is, as you say, the logo of the Facultad de Ingenieria Minera then it is probably a copyright violation and will require permission from the school using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:53, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong forum. File has not been deleted as of now -FASTILY 23:32, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lee Pui Sang 2011.jpg[edit]

This photo was taken by myself at the curtain call of the show on 2011-12-30. 1944-11-04-lps (talk) 16:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC)2013-11-04[reply]

? File has not been deleted. -FASTILY 23:32, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Heavyindustriestaxila1.jpg [edit]

HIT Logo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saad Bin Munim (talk • contribs) 17:38, 3 November 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Not done What Jim said -FASTILY 23:32, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:SN1006.jpg[edit]

Erroneously deleted. The credit line is NASA/CXC/Rutgers/J.Hughes et.al. Per Category:Chandra_images this means that the image is in public domain. The policy of the website is irrelevant. Ruslik (talk) 18:24, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose The creator, John Hughes, is not an NASA employee. Although he may or may not have used NASA facilities in creating this image, that does not make it a NASA image. Hughes owns the copyright and in order to restore it here we will need permission from him.
The comment at Category:Chandra_images is probably wrong. It quotes an OTRS e-mail from a person at NASA who does not appear to be a lawyer or employed in a legal capacity. I think she misunderstands the law.
I don't think for a minute that it is correct that all images taken using Chandra are PD. The telescope is simply a very large and expensive camera. It is well established that copyright belongs to the photographer, not the owner of the camera. It is therefore clear that the copyright belongs to the investigators or, possibly, their institution, not to NASA, unless the investigator actually was an employee of NASA at the time the image was created. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Not all NASA images are PD. For this file is to be considered for restoration, COM:OTRS permission is required -FASTILY 23:32, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:SEHS Storm.png[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: My username is SEHSstorm17! How is that not identification I go here. I don't have rule over the school. I'm only just updating information from THEIR website. That's plagiarism? Using info from a website to update another website about themselves? REALLY?! This is JUST a picture of our logo. That's is it. SEHSstorm17 (talk) 01:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is, and you'd better believe it -FASTILY 06:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cover art for new Samira Said Single "Mazal".jpg [edit]

File:Cover art for new Samira Said Single "Mazal".jpg Hi, I'm the official representative of Samira Said and we have the IP of the cover art regarding the Samira Said new single titled "Mazal". please undelete the file mentioned in the subject. if you have any question you can contact us by email at Adam@SamiraSaid.net Regards, Adam

--Nanocoloraturo (talk) 03:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:DMC-Poster.jpg [edit]

This uploaded file is the poster image for the film, Devil May Call. It has been available on the internet since the film's official site launched in 2013 and is only used here to identify the film in the Wikipedia article. Its use has been authorized by the copyright holder since the production company understands the poster image is used solely for Wikipedia as a reference and not for profit.

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 06:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Captura de pantalla de Dlubal RFEM.png[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: There are no copyright issues as we (I am engineer working for the company Dlubal Software) hold the rights. Please restore de picture and the RFEM post. Thank you very much. Best Regards Ing. Téc. José Martínez Dlubal Software Ingeniero español (talk) 15:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What elcobbola said -FASTILY 01:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Graf Von Luxburg.jpg[edit]

by blood and heritage concerning noble titles of my family and not violated anyone's copyright respoder alone and the family of Graf von Luxburg, Fürst und zu Carolath-Bytom-Carolat Prinz von Schoenaich, which belong in and as a right to be a member of this noble family without any restriction I can use the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Von Luxburg (talk • contribs)

  •  Oppose Although the above is largely unintelligible, I presume it is meant that the uploader purports to be a member of the "Von Luxburg" family and therefore believes s/he may license the image. To the extent this claim is genuine (related article is pending deletion on de.wiki), we would need something more substantive to host this image (e.g., inherited intellectual properties would generally be assigned to a specific individual or trust, not just "all members of the family" - documentation supporting to whom the IP is assigned and that that person agrees to license it freely would need to be sent to OTRS). Эlcobbola talk 17:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above -FASTILY 01:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sign_for_Slope_County_ND_Fair_(Amidon).jpg [edit]

I asked the copyright owner's permission to upload, and they gave it, and I uploaded it. Then I was made to forward it to OTRS and I did. The reply only said that it would have to be made clear that they are releasing it under a creative commons license, but I don't see why that is a requirement when they already have the forwarded email. Then today it was deleted. I insist I have full permission. Rcsprinter123 (talk) 19:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is the OTRS number on the reply you received? Nevermind; 2013092410015265. Эlcobbola talk 19:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The permission in the email is not adequate for our purposes. See, for example, COM:L ("simply writing that 'the material may be used freely by anyone' or similar isn't sufficient") Please also see the instructions at COM:OTRS; if you resubmit an email with explicit permission and an associated license, the OTRS volunteer will restore the image.  Oppose until that has occurred. Эlcobbola talk 19:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 01:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Telecentro.jpg [edit]

Hola. Quería solicitar la restitución del archivo Telecentro.jpg, para ser utilizado en la descripción de la página TeleCentro (Argentina). El uso de las imágenes es puramente informativo y está autorizado por los dueños de sus derechos. Solicito también información sobre la manera de liberar o configurar los derechos de la imagen para que pueda ser mantenida en Commons. Desde ya, muchas gracias.

--SMMTC (talk) 19:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 01:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Todd_Weather_Folios_South_Australian_Rainfall_1894_Oct_6.jpg[edit]

I am requesting the undeletion of this file and the other associated Todd weather folio images. The copyright is Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. As stated at the bottom of this website http://charlestodd.net/Todd_Hi-Res/ When I uploaded the images I thought the age of the documents was enough for copyright. I am uploading the images on behalf of The Australian Meteorological Association which took the images of the old folios. The image upload was suggested by the reviewer when the site was accepted. I tried uploading again with the correct copyright information but it was blocked. The names of the other images are: File:Todd_Weather_Folios_Synoptic_chart_1883_Nov_10.jpg File:Todd_Weather_Folios_Early_chart_1879_Feb_15.jpg File:Todd_Weather_Folios_Early_synoptic_chart_1882_May_29.jpg File:Todd_Weather_Folios_Letter_1883_Dec_5.jpg File:Todd_Weather_Folis_overseas data 1898 May 13.jpg --Rlduns (talk) 21:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 01:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Alberto Martinez.jpg [edit]

I am in possession of the record of trial in US v. Martinez as provided to me under the Freedom of Information Act. A copy of this image is included in records provided to me by the government. This fact tends to indicate that the photo is in the public domain as a government work and/or a record of a court proceeding.

--Nvr4get (talk) 21:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 01:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think OTRS are going to help with that one. It's a simple and common misunderstanding of freedom of information versus copyright legislation. The fact that one has the right to access the information does not mean that one has the right to modify and distribute it. Content that's not produced by the government does not enter the public domain simply because it is entered into evidence in a trial; if that were the case, copyright lawsuits would defeat their own purpose. —LX (talk, contribs) 06:32, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:AdamWorks-logoimage.png [edit]

This is the logo of a company for which I am writing an article. I expect the article to be complete this week or next. I had uploaded the image to see how it looked in a draft of the article, but I had additional research to do so I did not actually create the article at that time. (The other file I uploaded was a mistake and can stay deleted). Vlmagee (talk) 01:08, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just re-upload the file when you turn the article live -FASTILY 08:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Prof Joseph Heller (1941-) zoologist-malacologist faculty of Science Hebrew University Jerusalem.JPG[edit]

As written previously in talk of the entry, the portrait photo in subject was taken by me linked to Joseph Heller zoologist entries. There is not a sole legal reason to delete this photo.Tzamatz (talk) 16:46, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As is carefully explained at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Prof Joseph Heller zoologist-malacologist faculty of Science Hebrew University Jerusalem.JPG, we do not believe you -- there is no reason why you should have uploaded such a small image if you are actually the photographer.
Even so, since it appeared on a copyrighted web site before you uploaded it here, we require a license from that site using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. We would also appreciate a much larger version of the image. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:08, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Missing evidence of permission -FASTILY 00:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:حركة التوحيد الإسلامي.jpg [edit]

Hallo,

I would like to request an Undeletion of the Photo, because it is the Official Emblem of the Party to whom the article is attributed. And to check for it, you Just need to click on the official Party Webpage (mentioned in the Article).

I believe that When we Attribute to an Political-Party-Article a Photo of their Emblem (used on their Official Website), we are not violating any Copyright!

Regards

--S. El Mourad (talk) 22:05, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 00:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Führt kein Wappen.png[edit]

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Führt kein Wappen.png. File:Führt kein Wappen.svg is a derivative work of this file. The original is needed as reference. It was also part of a series: File:Führt kein Wappen.png, File:Führt kein Wappen 1.png, File:Führt kein Wappen 2.png, File:Führt kein Wappen 3.png, File:Führt kein Wappen 4.png, File:Führt kein Wappen 5.png. I'm pretty sure not being used is no valid reason to delete a file. Otherwise millions of images must be deleted. --TMg 23:10, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, very well then -FASTILY 00:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lenoir hippomobile 1860.jpg[edit]

The article on EERE specifly stated that all material in the article are free to use and reuse. Also all publications from the American government are copyright free (in the public domain). so please restore this picture. Cheers Mion (talk) 16:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose: The source was this pdf which does not say anything about the copyright status of images therein, let alone that they are free to use and reuse. Secondly, publications of the US government are not necessarily copyright free. Only works of federal authorship are public domain. The federal government is allowed to hold copyrights on works transferred to it and is allowed to use copyrighted images under the fair use provision like any other entity. For example, in this very pdf, page 27 is a copy of a newspaper article, page 28 is an image from Top Gear, page 29 is a cover of National Geographic Magazine, etc. By merely including these images in its publication, the US government does not magically eliminate their respective copyrights. Similarly, the large number of unambiguously non-government works in this pdf suggest that the deleted hippomobile image is also not a government image. Эlcobbola talk 17:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well the fact that other images are under copyright doesn't make that apply to this image, for this pdf the US Government rules apply that if not stated otherwise, the work is in the public domain as the pdf is created by a government body. I propose that the images stays till someone can proof it owns if any copyright on it.Mion (talk) 18:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The burden of proof is on you, per COM:EVID. There's no evidence this is the work of the federal government - quite the contrary, per above. Эlcobbola talk 18:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I dont agree, you state its copyrighted, you proof it.Mion (talk) 18:54, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have not said it is copyrighted; I've said it has not been demonstrated to be a government image - your burden. "In all cases, the burden of proof lies on the uploader or other person arguing for the file to be retained to demonstrate that [...] the file is in the public domain or is properly licensed" (COM:EVID). On page 22, they use an official Mercedes press photo (here) with no attribution. So too with the hippomobile; a lack of attribution does not mean it is of government authorship, especially because that assumption would be contrary to the nature of the other images in the pdf. Эlcobbola talk 19:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Wow, that's a lot of images used without attribution. I don't see any reason to guess that the image under question is any different then the ones we can solidly prove weren't created by the author. (And no, Commons keeps stuff we have good reason to believe is Free, not stuff that we can't prove is copyrighted.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:10, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If it's the one I think it is from the PDF, there is a watermark on there which looks like the ones seen on this page, which is for a "Haris Bros Auto Museum" (which I think was an online website, from Budapest, which went offline a number of years ago from the looks of it). So, that was probably the immediate source -- these are mostly images obtained from the web. In looking I have seen that same image (and similar ones) in other places without that mark, so that "museum" is probably not the original source either. But, it's safe to say it's not a US Government work. Carl Lindberg (talk) 09:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above -FASTILY 06:24, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Logo_ET28.png[edit]

El Archivo Logo_ET28.png no debió ser eliminado, ya que yo le creé y producí a partir de mi creatividad, al ser un archivo de mi propiedad, he decidido cederle mis derechos a Wikimedia Commons.

--BrianW071 (talk) 02:34, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 06:24, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Orden del Mérito Aéreo División por Otros Servicios (República Dominicana).svg [edit]

English:

This image is a medal from a military decoration awarded by the government of a sovereign country, therefore, is not protected by copyright. the User:콩가루 delete this just because the believes that the image was protected by copyright and this is an act of vandalism. I spended much time trying to reproduce that image and now another user deletes the image just because he believes that the image violates copyright. hereby i request that the account of User:콩가루 should be deleted.

Español:

Esta imagen es una medalla de una condecoración militar otorgada por el gobierno de un país soberano, por lo tanto, no esta protegida por los derechos de autor. el usuario borro esta imagen solo por que el creyó que la imagen estaba protegida por los derechos de autor y esto es un acto de vandalismo. pase mucho tiempo tratando de reproducir esa imagen y ahora otro usuario la borra solo por que el cree que que esta viola los derechos de autor. solicito por este medio que le sea borrada su cuenta.

--Cheposo (talk) 12:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose The Dominican copyright law is available in both English and Spanish at WIPO. I have read TITLE IV - LIMITATIONS OF AND EXCEPTIONS TO COPYRIGHT carefully and find nothing to suggest that military medals are free from copyright. This is consistent with the law in most other countries. Therefore this deletion appears to be correct. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done copyvio -FASTILY 06:24, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mars Orbitor Mission Launch.jpg [edit]

Reason given for deletion: Copyright violation: pib.nic.in doesnt allow sharing. Thus unsuitable for Common's licensing policy. The file was removed by User:Dharmadhyaksha

This file was released by Press Information Bureau, Government of India. Image can be located on their website (HERE) released under public domain. The image is NOT copyrighted! Please read the website's copyright policy:(HERE).

I'm posting an excerpt from the website's copyright policy here:

"Material featured on this website may be reproduced free of charge and there is no need for any prior approval for using the content.

Is this not an approval for sharing? Can I know which rule I've missed now??

If the license was not the most appropriate one, it could have been changed. Why was the file deleted? Shubhamkanodia (talk) 14:41, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! The pib.nic.in link given above further reads: "The permission to reproduce this material shall not extend to any third-party material. Authorisation to reproduce such material must be obtained from the departments/copyright holders concerned. The material must be reproduced accurately and not used in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context." We are not exactly sure if the image present there is produced by them or the "third-party" which they speak of in the next line. Also, we host images on Commons which can freely be used by other number of people without needing to ask for permissions again. We also allow only those images which can be freely modified. Thats why, images from pib.nic.in have always been deleted. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 15:09, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose "The material must be reproduced accurately and not used in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context" is an ND license which we do not accept. so no matter whose image it is, we cannot keep it here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done ND files are forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 06:24, 7 November 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 los Condes de Luxburg.png [edit]

estimado usuario este archivo lo edite, mejore y fue basado en el escudo original de los condes de luxburg un ejemplo de archivo original es este File:GvL-Wappen.jpg, fue mejorado gráficamente y en apariencia mejorando la apariencia del mismo casualmente también fue usado por los editores de la funadacion condes de luxburg, por lo que usted coloca que hay violacion de derechos de autor lo cual no es cierto puesto que de libre uso para la familia de los condes de luxburg.--Von Luxburg (talk) 16:22, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done What elcobbola said -FASTILY 06:24, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:La Voz...Argentina logo.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Solo con fines ilustrativos 200.77.227.68 17:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done copyvio -FASTILY 06:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:The Good Road-Film Poster.jpg[edit]

I am authorized to use this image. There is no reason this image should be deleted. Ryder212 (talk) 21:01, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose The image appears here and various other sites. The related film is attributed to the National Film Development Corporation Ltd. We would need permission from that entity or other legal rights holder to host the image - see COM:OTRS. Эlcobbola talk 21:13, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 06:24, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Once Again (film).jpg[edit]

I own this work, this file shouldn't be deleted. It's unfair for someone to just delete a file without knowing the facts. This should be restored asapRyder212 (talk) 21:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose The image appears here and various other sites. The poster appears itself to be a still frame from the related film and, accordingly, the copyright would be expected to belong to the production company, Sanjay Arora, or a similar legal entity. Because this image has been published before upload to the Commons, we require confirmation that you are the rights holder or an authorized representative of the rights holder - see COM:OTRS. Эlcobbola talk 21:09, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done copyvio -FASTILY 06:24, 7 November 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 Michalgoback[edit]

There is a permission for all deleted files from author's heir in OTRS info-cs queue (ticket:2013110610015937). --Harold (talk) 21:15, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Will restore per above. Эlcobbola talk 21:18, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gelände von Zorakarer aus der Luft mit Hervorhebungen neu.jpg [edit]

Hi,

I cannot understand why the file "Gelände von Zorakarer aus der Luft mit Hervorhebungen neu.jpg" violates copyrights (deleted: 21:11, 6. Nov. 2013 (CET), see: https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zorakarer&action=history). If the reason has something to do with the GoogleEarth pic that I used: There is no hint in the Wikipedia rules for the upload of files that this might be a violation of something.

ich kann nicht verstehen, warum diese von mir erstelle Datei eine Urheberrechtsverletzung darstellt. Falls der Grund in dem Google-Earth-Bild liegen sollte, das meiner Bild-Datei zugrunde liegt: In den Wikipedia-Regeln zum Hochladen einer Datei war kein Hinweis darauf zu finden, dass dies ein Verstoß darstellen könnte.

Grüße, thalmos - 22:23, 6. Nov. 2013 (CET)

 Not done copyvio -FASTILY 06:24, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:LTDs Kojak.jpg[edit]

Hello, I am requesting that the above file be undeleted. I forwarded the owners permission to use the photo moments ago to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. thank you, Ss 051 (talk) 17:16, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for doing that. OTRS will restore the file for you once they process the email you sent -FASTILY 22:18, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:The All-Girl Boys Choir (AGBC).jpg[edit]

You keep deleting my photos - I OWN them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovelifeworldwide (talk • contribs)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 22:18, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:NachoGijon.JPG File:NachoFeria.JPG File:NachoCelsius.JPG File:NachoDario.JPG [edit]

Las fotografías no infringen ningún tipo de derecho de autor, ya que la autoría de las mismas es propia. Pueden encontrar estas fotografías indagando un poco en el blog del escritor Ignacio Cid Hermoso: http://ventajasdeserunhipopotamo.blogspot.com.es, del cual yo, el usuario lolo27rcd, soy coautor. Espero puedan solucionar el problema lo antes posible. Muchas gracias. Lolo27rcd (talk) 13:41, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 07:17, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Profesora Venus.jpg[edit]

File:Profesora Venus file to undelete.jpg

I respectfuly request to undelete the file, because this photo has no copyright issues.

--Aida delgado (talk) 19:58, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the image has been found published prior to your upload at http://yhvhentertainment.wordpress.com/2013/09/11/la-profesora-venus-y-salomon/, while you claimed it as own work. --Túrelio (talk) 21:03, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 07:17, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Montage of Santiago City.png [edit]

Please undelete this file. If you want to I will credit the photographers who took each of the photos I included in the montage. Regards :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wkjt14 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 10 November 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Not done copyvio -FASTILY 07:17, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tokio Fukushima food ad.JPG[edit]

Hi,

This picture is one I took with my own camera on a public subway.

Here is the link to the homepage of the ad:

http://www.new-fukushima.jp/

Here is a link to a video of Tokio endorsing the product:

http://www.new-fukushima.jp/tvcm


What do I need to do to get it restored?

-Thanks, Krekk (talk) 08:51, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 10:36, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like the deleted file was an unauthorised derivative work. If that's the case, I'm not sure what good you think contacting our permission archive is going to do. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:44, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jaan Hargel 2.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The author has been identified. The owner of the picture, the archive of the Vanemuine Theatre, has given its consent. 217.11.237.26 13:42, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 02:27, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Radio contraband03.jpg[edit]

Hello, I am new to Wikipedia. I just tried to upload my original artwork and it was deleted. I am submitting a request to have the work undeleted. I own the work. Please let me know if I am doing anything wrong and how I may correct it. Thank you.

--Jacobmars (talk) 20:16, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 02:27, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Official_7_Days_To_Die_Logo.png [edit]

I was authorized by the owner of the image that I was allowed to upload the logo. http://gyazo.com/d99485dd14af386507ee744d2579e5c0.png.

Here is a link to the thread http://7daystodie.com/forums/showthread.php?428-for-the-fun-pimps&p=4428 which actually says that they have allowed it.

Sorry if I uploaded it with the wrong Copyright information, I am currently in the process of understanding the uploader. --LaimWMcKenzie (talk) 00:54, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 02:27, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mighty_Fox_S.R.C-chiff.png [edit]

Le logo de cette équipe de jeu virtuelle a été crée par mes soins sur gimp, et représente mon équipe. De même plusieurs autres logos et une carte ont été enlevés et ont été fait par moi ou mes amis, alors que d'autres ont étés gardés. Ils sont donc libres de droits.

Si vous pouviez les restaurer merci.

Ci joint la liste de tout les logos effacés par Eugene Zelenko.

GUC-chiff.png Irréductibles_Gaulois-chiff.png Wellington-chiff.png Force_XV-chiff.png Juillan_Pyrénées_Rugby-chiff.png Bordeaux_Jamaicans-chiff.png Mighty_Fox_S.R.C-chiff.png Spartiates-giff.png 15_sabots-chiff.png CARTE_CLUBS-chiff.png

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 02:27, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Slovenia FOP Cases[edit]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Arena Bonifika
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Arena Zlatorog.png
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Podmežakla Hall.png
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hala komunalnega Centra3.jpg
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tivoli Hall.png
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stožice1.jpg
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stožice3.jpg

All these DRs depict a sports event and were deleted due to FOP. Closing admin reviewed all of these DRs in 2 min so I guess he didn't have time to read the discution or look at the photos. As stated in the (ignored) DR comments - these photos are similar to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stadium de Toulouse.jpg or Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stade Felix-Bollaert.jpg which were kept. --Sporti (talk) 07:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore for sure the first 4 or them for clear DM. The photos focus on the sports event. Dubious about the last two, because though it pictures a large portion of arena, nonetheless the centre of the image is the pitch and the subject cannot be anything but the event. Anyway I would kindly remind everyone that while is within the rights of any user opening RfDs, common sense should suggest us when it's not the case of opening them. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 09:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't completely agree:

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with those four, but it might be useful to have at least one more opinion. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I think so too. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 18:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Restored the 4 above, but I would also restore

With File:Arena Bonifika.jpg, the whole image is grainy, but enough of the building is readily visible that I think this should not be restored. File:Stožice1.jpg also seems problematic to me, with quite heavy cropping needed to remove the curved balcony. I think the bottom half is probably okay though. Cropping the top from File:Podmežakla Hall.png would seem to leave little creative architectural detail visible, and darkening it to reduce the overexposure on the court would help too, so with some editing I think that one could be restored. --Avenue (talk) 12:55, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to Avenue and Yann, I think that Sergio and I are happy with all of them now, so we can close this. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Restored everything where there is consensus to restore. Rest have been left deleted -FASTILY 02:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Aco Šopov Anthologie.jpg[edit]

The file Aco Šopov Anthologie.jpg is my own work. It is the cover of my father's book "Anthologie personnelle" published in 1994 by UNESCO in the collection "Collection UNESCO d'oeuvres représentatives" and co-edited by Actes Sud. I took the picture of the cover that I put on Wiki Commons.

Here is the detail of the rights printed in the book: (c) Jasmina Šopova et Vladimir Šopov /myself and my late brother/ (c) Ante Popovski, 1994, pour l'introduction (c) Actes Sud, 1994, pour la postface (c) UNESCO, 1994, pour la traduction française ISBN Actes Sud 2-7427-0203-2 ISBN Unesco 92-3-202964-2. Illustration de couverture: Portrait d'Aco Šopov par Dimitar Kondovski Collection particulière /my own collection/ (Tous droits réservés)

According to the publishers, the cover of the book can be freely reproduced. The book is out of print. Please let me know if you need more information in order to allow the undeletion of the file file Aco Šopov Anthologie.jpg Thanking you in advance, Jasmina Šopova — Preceding unsigned comment added by Јасмина Шопова (talk • contribs) 13:01, 10 November 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose This image has been restored by Marcus Cyron, following a request on his talk page. It contains a painting by Dimitar Kondovski who died in 1993. While Kondovski's heirs may have licensed the painting for use on the book cover, it is very unlikely that they licensed it for general use, as we would require. Also, the note above suggests that the copyright to the book is held by User:Јасмина Шопова and the estate of her brother. We have no evidence of permission from the latter. It seems to be that in order to keep this image we should have permission from both Kondovski's heirs and the heirs of Šopova's brother, both using the procedure at COmmons:OTRS. 23:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC).     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me)

Closing as moot per Marcus. I've cleared the page so the uploader can provide us with new details -FASTILY 02:49, 12 November 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/Files in Category:Loftus Versfeld[edit]

It was determined in the deletion request that this stadium is a 1923–28 work by an unknown architect. However, wrongly a 70 years pma term was applied instead of South African copyright law. According to South African copyright law any building is an "artistic work" (see definition of an "artistic work"). This stadium was created under the direction of Pretoria City Council in 1923–28 and thus falls under {{PD-South-Africa}} (an artistic, literary or musical work created under the direction of the state or an international organization and 50 years have passed since the year the work was published), as 50 years have passed since "publication". Thus this stadium is in public domain under {{PD-South-Africa}} and its photos should be undeleted — NickK (talk) 18:30, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose, as long as there is no evidence that the city council qualifies as part of the state. --Eleassar (t/p) 09:36, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    According to my researches South African courts use a very broad definition of "the State", including all local governments and all governmental organisations. An extreme case can be found here, where it is stated that even a printer of local council is considered part of "the State". This article also provides summary of previous court decisions: courts have never accepted arguments that a governmental organisation is not a part of "the State", the only discussions were on whether "the State" could really control the creation of the work. Here all the sources state that it was Pretoria City Council that effectively erected the stadium, thus it is clear that "the State" had a real control over this project — NickK (talk) 12:41, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for having clarified this. I have no further objection. --Eleassar (t/p) 13:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Restored: as per NickK's arguments. Yann (talk) 17:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Glass Mosaic of a dove on display at Camp Gesher with the Hebrew for "gesher" in the middle.jpg[edit]

Took this picture myself and have permission from the original artists. This is not a copyrighted object. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crocodilesareforwimps (talk • contribs) 15:29, 11 November 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose It is almost certainly a copyrighted object -- all created objects have copyrights until they expire. The exceptions are very limited and almost certainly do not apply here. In order to restore this image we will need both evidence that the artists are notable and a license from them using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:21, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done what Jim said. -FASTILY 02:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:zingmagazine issue 23.jpg [edit]

The image of the cover of zingmagazine issue number 23 is created and owned by artist Devon Dikeou, the founder/editor/publisher of zingmagazine (LLC) based in New York City. zingmagazine is distributed and sold worldwide and is under full copyright of the owner, Devon Dikeou. Devon Dikeou is the creator and editor of the relative Devon Dikeou wikipedia page and all images are original and created by her, the artist, and are free for public use with proper citation, as was used on said images that have been deleted.

Devon Dikeou, artist, creator and owner of all images on her wiki page, requests that the the image files for zingmagazine 23 and the zingmagazine grid be undeleted. Thank you.

--Dikeoucollection (talk) 16:54, 11 November 2013 (UTC)9:54 AM MST, Devon Dikeou/Dikeoucollection[reply]


The file at issue here is apparently File:Zingmagazine Issue 23.jpg . Please note that Commons file names distinguish between upper and lower case.

The magazine's web site, [1], says, in part, "No part of this publication may be reproduced in any manner or form without permission." There is no evidence there or in the deleted file description of any permission or free license. In order to restore this, we will need a license from an address at zingmagazine.com, using the procedure at Commons:OTRS.

This also applies to File:NEW ZING GRID.jpg.

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim. The copyright holder or a representative of the copyright holder needs to email OTRS using the process outlined here. Someone from OTRS will restore the file(s) if everything checks out -FASTILY 02:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Perko-Grozde_1992.jpg [edit]

File:Perko-Grozde_1992.jpg let be undeleted, because an author of picture, painter Tomaž Perko send me in letter his permission for undeletion. Date 7. XI. 2013. "I, Tomaž Perko, release File:Perko-Grozde_1992.jpg into the free CC-BY-SA 3.0 license." I shall uploade his permission later. Thank you very much for understenting. Stebunik.

I do not object to the undeletion of this image, but it should be tagged with {{OTRS pending}}. --Eleassar (t/p) 19:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS pending -FASTILY 01:17, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam.djvu[edit]

Don't understand what exactly the issue was leading to the deletion of this work and creating over a dozen orphan pages over on Wikisource in the process...

Full designation

Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, Aug. 5, 1990,
U.N. GAOR, World Conf. on Hum. Rts., 4th Sess., Agenda Item 5,
U.N. Doc. A/CONF.157/PC/62/Add.18 (1993) [English translation].

Can somebody please explain how an official United Nations document did not meet the {{PD-UN}} license requirements? -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Restored: Work of the UN. No reason to delete. Yann (talk) 09:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:" 13 - ITALY - monuments of Milan in art - marking pen drawings colored by children - Teatro alla Scala.jpg ‎ [edit]

I open this topic to allow non-expert user (author of the drawings and the author of the photo) to comment on these deleted images, short the affected user intervenes to declare what he has to say--Pava (talk) 21:42, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose There are two questions here, copyvio and scope. In order to keep these images we will, in each case, require permission from the parents or guardians of all of the children who participated in creating it. Without that we are violating the copyrights. As for scope, we do not generally keep personal art from non-notable artists, which these certainly are. If we decide that children's paintings are in scope, I have two grandchildren who would delighted to have their work posted here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    children have only colorful, not drawn, there is no copyright. Are only reproductions (the purpose is not art, but documentation), the purpose is not artistic but have a graphical representation of an object, it has a good use and of course copyright does not subsist, the images the author has already issued a free license. --Pava (talk) 17:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    However for copyright, if you do not trust the words of one who has the rights, on the site where these photos are posted to the statement that there shall be issued free license CC-BY-SA 3.0 ITALY --Pava (talk) 17:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I am the author and I release, as indicated by license, the drawings under license CC-BY-SA 3.0 it. All the architects who designed the works reproduced in drawings have been dead for more than 70 years --Giuliabombelli (talk) 22:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    link to license source--Pava (talk) 22:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support IMO it's ridicolous to consider childrens drawings works of art and to put a problem of copyright. -- DenghiùComm (talk) 06:58, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support The children contribution is limited to colored areas ad therefore it's below Threshold of originality. The artistic content is inherent the monument portrayed. The scope is to document how an institution attracts youth towards art. -- Fulvio 314 08:35, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Jim's reasons don't seem convincing to me. I am in favor of restoring the drawings and I give my consent: as Fulvio and Pava said the scope is to document ways to make monuments and architectures known by the children. We have the necessary informations, including the link to the blog where the images are published to deduce that there is no copyright violation.--Giuliabombelli (talk) 20:07, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose It may be your opinion that children's drawings aren't copyrightable, but that doesn't make it legal fact. Children are people, and as people their creative work is copyrighted. I might accept the coloring as uncopyrightable if it were done by a careful colorist, but not the idiosyncratic coloring of children.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    But, here, children have only colored no drawing, is like saying that if I do those one of those magazines for children where there are coloring in the blanks then I have the copyright on that work. You can know what we are discussing? However, the source from which the images are taken with the states free license CC-BY-SA 3.0, and that site is run by teachers and parents. All this discussion is considered to be personal, who has the rights of the photos has released with CC-BY-SA 3.0. You can find out what else is there to talk about? --Pava (talk) 20:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If this were 1900, I might agree with you; after a century of black squares and paint splatter being art, I'm not convinced that drawing over an outline is not art. (I'm not even sure that it hasn't been sold to some museum.) And if this were precision work done in Photoshop, the coloring probably wouldn't be copyrightable in the US (I don't know about Italy), but being hand-colored does make a difference.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    ok, but it just so happens that those who hold the rights (the blog is run by parents and teachers) has already released the work under a free license, so the problem does not arise. Right? --Pava (talk) 18:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose No support (court cases, statutory law, legal scholarship) has been provided for the notions above that children are ineligible to be granted copyrights and/or that these works are below the threshold of originality. TOO generally requires only a minimal amount of creativity (indeed, it is merely a prohibition against copying in the US) which could conceivably be satisfied by color selection alone. If children, as minors, are ineligible to hold copyrights, there would need to be clarification as to whether no rights would be granted at all or whether rights would be granted but held by legal, non-minor guardians. If the guardians hold the copyright, the blog would need to identify explicitly parental release under the free licenses; I don't see that it does. Эlcobbola talk 22:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
REPEAT (this is the fourth time): the parents (or his deputy, or custodians) of children, have already given their consent HERE with license CC-BY-SA 3.0-it. Do you (we) understand or not? In addition, while we can restore this? That has not been colored by children: File:" 13 - ITALY - monuments of Milan in art - marking pen drawings.jpg. The other should be restored because it has already been authorized their publication with proper license to commons, this discussion is now outdated, unnecessary. thank you --Pava (talk) 22:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll repeat: "the blog would need to identify explicitly parental release under the free licenses; I don't see that it does." Do you not understand? All it says is "All the images in this article are released under free license CC-BY-SA 3.0 ITALY" This is tantamount to Flickrwashing: authorization needs to come from the children or (more likely) parents, not some blogger. So where does the blog say anything about explicit parental release? Эlcobbola talk 00:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, But it is the parents who run the blog with the teacher, the bloggher guardian of the parents, however, ok, I will ask a written release stating that parents are aware of, understand and authorize the publication under the license of colorful designs, despite this , is one of those designs in black and white, with no contributions from children, that can go restored, right? because its author has released use under CC-BY-SA 3.0-it --Pava (talk) 13:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Fatto as you can see now the statement is clear on the site, and melt away all doubt [2] (in the footer of the page, in bold, before the format of sharing with the social network.) the notice is this: <<The author Giulia Bombelli and the parents or guardians of the children who have realized the drawings and the colored drawings of the monuments of Milan reproduced in this article release the images under CC-BY-SA 3.0, where as “the author” must be included “Giulia Bombelli and bambinicreativi’s parents”>>
Your doubts are resolved now? --Pava (talk) 18:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa! Parents may be the legal guardians and custodians of their children’s authorship rights, but they should not be mentioned as authors — obviously the chisldren are the authors, and should be idenfied (even if anonymously) as such. -- Tuválkin ✉ 11:32, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
children are already listed as authors, they were in the description of each photo in an anonymous "Giulia Bombelli e i bambini creativi di Milano" (Giulia Bombelli and creative children's Milan) --Pava (talk) 13:38, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I won't engage in this dispute. Moreover, I am sick and tired to repeat the same things every time there's an issue of alleged copyright violation regarding a subject pictured in Italy. I simply am irritated by the fact that someone must see Italians as people who ignore laws whereas there are customs and praxis too. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 09:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • How about you look at copyright stuff not in Italy? People nowhere care about the careful details of copyright law. We fuss about the definition of anonymous works, the definition of publication, about FoP in any number of countries, etc. Custom and praxis don't matter in the least; we care about the law.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:58, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • in this case, however, the law has been complied with and there is no breach of copyright , spoke also the author of the drawings which is also the one who took the pictures and there is the official website of the statement that all parents and guardians children have granted sharing with free license. SERGIO is a Director of wikimedia commons and Wikipedia Italian , I work on commons for 6 years , Fulvio also , it would be enough that you will fidaste other users since we are experts and we face on wikipedia and commons of these issues has existed for many years. In addition there is also a lack of willingness on your part to listen because for example of these 6 images one does not have even the colors of the children and I have asked several times if you agree to restore the meantime and have not received any response. Participate and improve commons , enforce the law and other users also means collaborating , listening, reading everything and answer all, take into consideration all the words of others , not this what I have to do only because I think it is only my interest in restoring the images should be in the interest of all.--Pava (talk) 18:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • In the past, the choice of colors was judged below the threshold of originality, i.e. DR of Windows logo. But now that the free license was clearly declared by the rightholder, the problem is overcome. All's Well That Ends Well. -- Fulvio 314 19:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Support I forgot to mention that I too am in favor of restoring them if it is always the one who opened the request. But I'd like to know, now that the doubts were dispelled solicited and placed in the gaps emerged, what they think the people who had asked me to make changes, because it is a bit 'useless expose a problem and then once resolved not to say anything : ( --Pava (talk) 21:54, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close as  Not done, as a discussion with no new activity for over a week and no clear consensus to restore -FASTILY 00:16, 14 November 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 B Levin13[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I originally uploaded similar files as .svg images. Although I am aware .svg images are preferred, the images rendered poorly and inconsistently and so I uploaded the .png versions which look much better. Since there appeared to be two copies (in different formats), the above .png versions were deleted. However, I believe the .svg versions should be removed and the .png files restored. I have already requested the .svg versions be deleted. B Levin13 (talk) 18:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done -FASTILY 20:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

Maria Zambrano de Gando[edit]

Hi, following is the message (discucion) posted to Taichi, since I have no answer from him I am appealing his decision.

Discusión:Maria Zambrano de Gando Saltar a: navegación, búsqueda Todo lo que esta escrito en la biografia de Maria Zambrano de Gando es REAL, nada es ficticio. Vivimos en una sociedad del YO, y por lo tanto ver q una joven persona como Maria tenga una larga carrera de ayuda social, la cual es facilmente comprobada, no es creible y suena a elogios innecesarios. Maria es un ejemplo a seguir, cuando la innudacion en Manta, ella albergo a mas de 40 personas en su Inn, dato q se me paso por alto, al ver este acto de solidaridad con los mas necesitados, se creo una cadena de ayuda, ya q ella comenzo a recibir los comestibles de diferentes negocios, empresas e instituciones. Como ves este dato pasado por alto en su biografia hubiera caido en la gategoria de: La página contiene un texto de autopromoción, publicitario o con muchos elogios innecesarios que no le permiten tener una redacción neutral. Pero la verdad es que si tuvieramos mas Maria, como ella, este mundo seria mucho mejor. Y es subjetivo aquello de: El artículo trata de un tema (grupo musical, página web, empresa, biografía, etc.) que no tiene un interés enciclopédico. Quiza deberiamos darle espacio a biografias como las de Maria Zambrano de Gando, que son ejemplos, donde se destaca la importancia del projimo, y la participacion social. Best regards, Elimurzam (discusión) 14:53 12 nov 2013 (UTC)

and this is a page's that has the same ground to be deleted but was not deleted [[3]] In Maria Zambrano de Gando's biography all the information is true, even the links in the reference section can prove it, theredore I am asking you to undelete her bio.

for the time and consideration given to my request I thank you in advance, --Elimurzam (talk) 00:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand. There is no biography of Maria Zambrano de Gando on Wikimedia Commons and never was. If there had been a biography, it would have been deleted as out of scope -- Commons is for images, not biographies.
There was a biography on WP:ES, but it was deleted. This is not the place to discuss that -- Commons cannot influence Wikipedia decision.
I also see three images that have been deleted from Commons.
These are all crops from the same image. The decision to delete them as out of scope appears to be correct. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above. Out of scope -FASTILY 20:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Welcome to Tuktoyaktuk cropped.jpg [edit]

Deutsch: Bitte die Datei wieder herstellen. Es ist ein Ausschnitt von File:Welcome to Tuktoyaktuk.jpg. Das Original ist auf flickr und ist CC-BY-2.0. Danke
Translate to
English: Please restore the file. It is a cropping from File:Welcome to Tuktoyaktuk.jpg. The original is on flickr and is CC-BY-2.0. Thanks
--Knochen ﱢﻝﱢ‎  15:36, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks --Knochen ﱢﻝﱢ‎  17:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:SOUNDSTREAM band (2012).png that's not a copyright violation, the photo by the link specified was provided to the ShowBiza portal by me![edit]

--Djfatcat (talk) 17:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 20:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Road Sign Welcome to California.jpg[edit]

There should be an email in the OTRS confirming the PD status of the image. The discuss is here: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Road Sign Welcome to California.jpg. Evrik (talk) 17:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done, that seems to be the case -FASTILY 20:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Skrillex_free_treats_2011_cover.jpg[edit]

Hello,

The reason for the request is that the Wikipedia page is not complete without this image. Every album should have a visible album cover, therefore I hope that this image will be allowed.

Thank you.

--19-FOUAD-97 (talk) 23:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

The problem is that the album cover isn't a free use file. Get another copy, go here at en.wp and follow the form for uploading an album cover. Covers for albums are allowed at en.wp as non-free files. We hope (talk) 23:51, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Non-free images are forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 00:16, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tom Lennon 2013.jpg[edit]

Why is this photo being deleted? It is owned by me and is more recent and better quality.

COM:NETCOPYRIGHT. If you are in fact the copyright holder of the file, please email COM:OTRS -FASTILY 01:58, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:RAF Menwith Hill 2.jpg[edit]

Image at flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jriddell/2602604728/

Similar DRs:

No valid reason for deletion. -- Common Good (talk) 11:37, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 22:06, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:CCTV Mucroid.jpeg[edit]

No valid reason for deletion. Also interesting because of its file history. 91.66.153.214 13:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Even more interesting is the behavior of this anonymous user [4][5]. St1995 13:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done out of scope -- Commons is not a means of personal promotion -FASTILY 22:06, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:I am blue.jpg[edit]

As case above: No valid reason for deletion. Also interesting because of the admin bihevior, see -> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Taivo#File:I_am_blue.jpg Electron ツ ➧☎ 15:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done by Taivo (talk · contribs) and a normal DR opened; see Commons:Deletion requests/File:I am blue.jpg Эlcobbola talk 21:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:CD cover Crown of Creation 1997.jpg[edit]

Reason: It is my own work and also my own photo. I allow that everybody can use this work. Matthias Blazek (talk) 18:13, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done out of scope -- Commons is not a means of personal promotion -FASTILY 22:06, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Solicitud de deshacer el borrado del archivo del logo ucema[edit]

Por favor reestablecer el logo de la Universidad del CEMA archivo de nombre "File:Ucema Centrado.jpg". Soy empleado de la Universidad, el logo es correcto y queremos que figuro. Gracias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmaggini (talk • contribs)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 22:06, 14 November 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 TheCollector2014 (ALL IMAGES per Darian Lane)[edit]

I OWN all the rights and COPYRIGHTS to these images. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheCollector2014 (talk • contribs)

This relates to Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by TheCollector2014.

 OpposeYou're going to have to do much better than that in explaining. While we generally assume that our colleagues are telling the truth, when a brand new editor appears on the scene and uploads a wide variety of professional images, magazine tear sheets, and posters, all of which have a copyright, we need more explanation than a simple assertion. How is it that you own the copyright to all of these? Are you aware that simply owning a copy of a photograph or a poster does not make you the copyright owner -- that requires a formal written agreement? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What Jim said. Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 22:06, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Evangeličanska cerkev v Puconcih.jpg[edit]

Please, restore File:Evangeličanska cerkev v Puconcih.jpg. The church was built in 1784 and was redesigned for the last time in 1909 upon the plans by the architect Takács Lászlo (1880-1916).[6][7] Per Commons:Copyright rules by territory#Slovenia, it is in the public domain. Thank you. --Eleassar (t/p) 12:22, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Эlcobbola talk 16:30, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Yükseliş.jpg [edit]

Yükseliş (talk) 11:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose This has not yet been deleted, but probably will be. If in fact, it is your own work, as you claim, that it will be deleted because personal art is out of scope. If it is the logo of a notable ice hockey team, then we require permission from an officer of the team's corporation using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

what to doFile:Yükseliş.jpg ?Yükseliş (talk) 12:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again -- if the file is actually the logo of a notable team, then we require permission from an officer of the team's corporation using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. If it is not, then it will be deleted. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:48, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow the procedure at COM:OTRS -FASTILY 07:38, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

Hi, i'm not sure if this has been a miss understanding or not, but with the image that was deleted, I had permissions from the owner of the photo it's self (he is also the owner of the car). The only request he gave me was no registration details be visible.Space alligator (talk) 12:42, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 07:38, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

david trueba 2013 [edit]

Hola. Trabajo para la productora FERNANDO TRUEBA PC que cuenta con los derechos de la foto DAVID TRUEBA 2013, del fotográfo Adolfo Crespo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmndd (talk • contribs)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 07:38, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Demetrio Herrera Sevillano.jpg [edit]

I enter all the information require at the copyright that was at the wizard, an it's an injustice for me, because I'm contributing to add a picture at the wiki helping the people and I'm not making anything wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samyaaron (talk • contribs)

Hello, Your file comes from [8], and a license was missing. Worse, the date is wrong, and there is no proof that it is in public domain, or under a free license. Yann (talk) 18:41, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 07:38, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Douglas Devananda 2.jpg: though from a black-listed Flickr-account, seems to be o.k.[edit]

This file was deleted as it came from a black-listed Flickr-account[9]. (the deletion also initiated a complaint at COM:AN/U.) However, when checking the overall situation, the authorship claim and the licensing[10] seem to be o.k. The image was uploaded to Flickr the same day in 2010 when it had been shot, assuming that the EXIF-data weren't forged. According to Google-images the only other URL where it is hosted in full resolution is http://img.readtiger.com/wkp/en/Douglas_Devananda.jpg, which is undated.(linked at http://kamistad.net/pic-11/kanthi-lanka.html) I am posting it here (instead of directly undeleting it), to allow for other opinions. --Túrelio (talk) 16:53, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Support undeletion. I looked into this earlier and came to the same conclusion as Túrelio. http://img.readtiger.com/wkp/en/Douglas_Devananda.jpg has a file timestamp on the server of 2013-10-07 (verified using wget). http://readtiger.com is a (copyright violating) Wikipedia mirror; hence the /wkp/en/ part of the address. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:09, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 01:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tengo los derechos de todas mis imágenes[edit]

File:Alfileres-de-Novia-2014-Perla-Cristal-Sevilla.jpg Distinguidos señores,

Mi nombre es Yolanda de la Rubia Mellado y soy la titular de la marca española AURORA DIAZ con numéro de marca M2937553 , de manera que tengo los derechos de las imagénes que he subido a su galería. Cualquier persona puede usar las imágenes siempre y cuando no se modifiquen, pues los alfileres que aparecen en ellas están registrados en marcas y patentes y es imprescindible que eso se sepa para evitar nuevos casos de plagio que ya hemos sufrido con anterioridad.

Por ello ruego vuelvan a permitir que mis imágenes estén disponibles en su galería para que cualquier persona pueda hacer uso de ellas.

Saludos Cordiales,

Yolanda de la Rubia Mellado — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shuchica (talk • contribs) 12:09, 17 November 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose
First, "las imágenes siempre y cuando no se modifiquen" is an ND license, and is not permitted on Commons.
Second, the source site has a clear copyright statement "todos los derechos reservados" so we would need a license in order the keep the image on Commons. The image has the same warning as a watermark.
Third, the image is a clear violation of COM:ADVERT, so it cannot be kept in any case.
I have also deleted File:Alfileres-de-Boda-Plata- Cristal-Sevilla-2014-.jpg for the same reasons. The uploader has had two images deleted previously for the same reasons by Magog. I suggest that she should not upload any more images unless she removes the advertising material and provides a license.
     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:22, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above. Files violate multiple core policies. -FASTILY 01:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Chilean Navy Marine Corps soldiers in a military ceremony,.jpg [edit]

Me aseguré que esta foto no violase las normas de copyright de la página... Considero que esto ya va más allá de una simple preocupación necesaria y se está tomando como algo fuera del contexto wikipedia Maverick chile86 (talk) 17:34, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:InfanteriadeMarinaChile parada militar.jpg

Deshacer este borrado, razón: foto digitalizada de un archivo familiar (de formato análogo a digital) Maverick chile86 (talk) 17:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose Neither of these has been deleted yet, but they should be.
The first comes from http://www.armada.cl/prontus_armada/site/artic/20090709/pags/20090709170237.html. Your image description says "Downloaded from internet". Please understand that most images on the Internet are under copyright and do not have licenses which allow their use on Commons. That is certainly the case with this one.
The second comes from http://www.zonamilitar.com.ar/foros/threads/noticias-de-la-armada-de-chile.14325/page-47, where it is credited to Nicolás García. You yourself say above that it comes from a family archive, but in the image description you said that you were the photographer ("own work"). Unless you can explain how it has three different authors, and get a free license from the real one, it cannot be kept.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:29, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Dubious copyright status/Copyvio -FASTILY 01:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

Files in Category:Images using filenames with Facebook photo identities[edit]

For a background on these mass deletions, please refer to Commons:Village_pump#Uploads_from_Facebook_needing_attention. I am requesting these for undeletion as they appear to have been deleted based on an apparent misunderstanding of Facebook terms, rather than for any specified individual copyright violations. The deletions were made using VFC with the blanket comment "Facebook files, which means they are copyrighted by facebook. This is complete bollocks as regards copyright release, but unfortunately binding."

The purpose of creating the category Images using filenames with Facebook photo identities was for a suitable review to take place and moves or deletions as appropriate depending on the sources, uploader, description or any identified copyright violation. This mass deletion by-passed that intended review and is not supported by policy or speedy deletion guidelines. Past examples of file names matched in this way as containing Facebook photo identities, have been correctly improved with copyright confirmed, some are used on other projects such as en.wp, and some are part of well recognized projects such as WLM. The deleting admin has been approached in the linked VP discussion, on IRC today, and a notification of this request is now on their user talk page. --Fæ (talk) 18:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  1. File:1009205_10151745004523199_955401070_o.jpg
  2. File:1040666_10151412252982723_579330910_o.jpg
  3. File:1052605_10151729432273674_797289646_o.jpg
  4. File:1057194_10151780776865439_1422500228_n_1.jpg
  5. File:1072445_10151660160688280_787510963_o.jpg
  6. File:1084900_10200347381594193_310240836_o.jpg
  7. File:1084996_10200353284341758_1252195150_o.jpg
  8. File:1093869_10200373769213867_1490355033_o.jpg
  9. File:1093871_10200347359273635_620032533_o.jpg
  10. File:1094630_10151567188707256_2044530709_o.jpg
  11. File:1096998_10152130553734829_376915368_o.jpg
  12. File:1097162_10200367490496903_1857020349_o.jpg
  13. File:1097711_10200353288861871_750500802_o.jpg
  14. File:1097779_10200358556793566_41569847_o.jpg
  15. File:1102732_10201094778103959_1351173693_o.jpg
  16. File:1116017_10151561829671161_1782075772_o.jpg
  17. File:1119880_10151524488027791_1705206071_o.jpg
  18. File:1119880_10200353294142003_561550137_o.jpg
  19. File:1119964_10200353298942123_1831124868_o.jpg
  20. File:1146146_10200373770173891_1799915169_o.jpg
  21. File:1146184_10200373761373671_1893548235_o.jpg
  22. File:1146756_10200347378314111_757444791_o.jpg
  23. File:1146824_10200353310502412_2056425485_o.jpg
  24. File:1146995_10200347298032104_1187383621_o.jpg
  25. File:1147612_10200358531712939_1190118843_o.jpg
  26. File:1147744_10200353294942023_912725695_o.jpg
  27. File:1147772_10200358531272928_1243786187_o.jpg
  28. File:1149164_10200358546833317_1944569573_o.jpg
  29. File:1149202_10200414688236817_1847327000_o.jpg
  30. File:1149235_10200347364433764_1005987378_o.jpg
  31. File:1149269_10200347311712446_1086432240_o.jpg
  32. File:1149336_10200373773013962_1454791066_o.jpg
  33. File:1149363_10200358570273903_77755873_o.jpg
  34. File:1149415_10200373751933435_592344680_o.jpg
  35. File:1149445_10151539923025988_1865921200_o.jpg
  36. File:1149486_10200353285181779_1842700504_o.jpg
  37. File:1149545_10200353295582039_792054630_o.jpg
  38. File:1149629_10200358587594336_1234056708_o.jpg
  39. File:1149662_10200347348993378_2064116593_o.jpg
  40. File:1149676_10200347350833424_1947220829_o.jpg
  41. File:1150465_10200367491256922_468176141_o.jpg
  42. File:1150499_10200358557553585_588106273_o.jpg
  43. File:1150511_10200353298022100_1921403482_o.jpg
  44. File:1150603_10200353289901897_1446161844_o.jpg
  45. File:1150642_10200367489256872_97571395_o.jpg
  46. File:1150643_10200358547753340_1378697048_o.jpg
  47. File:1167531_10200347273391488_661708234_o.jpg
  48. File:1240174_10151655861965896_489474698_n8.jpg
  49. File:1269514_10151849806043184_1526073620_היום_פארק_המדע.jpg
  50. File:1272261_10200629870535547_806160988_o.jpg
  51. File:1274914_10202011493712586_606865902_o.jpg
  52. File:1294280_10201572016996335_895207860_o_-_Copie.jpg
  53. File:135176_10200666482203009_1569615058_o.jpg
  54. File:1368817_10151966879650555_16842942_n_(1).jpg
  55. File:1379549_10151894684686007_2070630921_n9.jpg
  56. File:1395818_10201890097072596_285234478_a.jpg
  57. File:1454732_10151773682121009_782134g649_n.jpg
  58. File:150488_10200836076368293_1037912845_n_-_copia.jpg
  59. File:164273_10152633535065231_1343730316_n_(1)_副本.jpg
  60. File:167440_10150112200247975_618592974_7326930_6193751_n.jpg
  61. File:171411_10150184440775278_1626412_o.jpg
  62. File:171577_10150090842337186_510342185_6850917_2185847_o.jpg
  63. File:171606_10150109533849697_807549696_6088852_3134802_o.jpg
  64. File:172245_10150093468052186_510342185_6879672_2631507_o.jpg
  65. File:175341_10150115388602321_576422320_6978850_6386415_o.jpg
  66. File:175666_10150124729983760_693933759_7877099_3407026_o.jpg
  67. File:176352_10150180233473266_608233265_8986717_3088334_o.jpg
  68. File:178759_10150915030968883_764886707_o.jpg
  69. File:179818_10100156949573651_6005290_53517629_2821100_n.jpg
  70. File:183722_10150107210606537_593021536_6710034_5085577_n.jpg
  71. File:184641_10150095721612455_625307454_6822730_557782_n.jpg
  72. File:190377_10150223856769377_502454376_9182418_5097339_n.jpg
  73. File:190484_10150157250722658_720492657_8043374_4065277_n.jpg
  74. File:190675_10150421502290007_611650006_17141926_8383994_n.jpg
  75. File:193657_10150185314610833_725555832_8974717_3006487_o.jpg
  76. File:195160_10151183236774521_1158528274_o.jpg
  77. File:197546_10150453792350457_579670456_17672801_2361691_n.jpg
  78. File:199614_10150454525595457_579670456_17679683_1083149_n.jpg
  79. File:200703_10150189382752985_695122984_8579525_4312468_n.jpg
  80. File:202293_10150950238743883_769843884_o.jpg
  81. File:205166_10150189004850141_3436247_n_1.jpg
  82. File:208450_10150157042848507_635743506_6846983_6127264_n.jpg
  83. File:210613_10150139722293440_683818439_6614552_314346_o.jpg
  •  Oppose The files need OTRS tickets unless they are {{PD-ineligible}} or {{PD-old}}. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:06, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not understand your comment, many of these will have been uploaded by the original photographer. A CC-BY licence or similar would be fine and of course a move to a more meaningful filename. As stated in the undel request this is the point of Faebot tracking down these images and putting them in a handy backlog category. The deleting admin has already apologized on the Village pump for deleting these by mistake. --Fæ (talk) 21:26, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • If that is true for some of them, they should be individually tagged as such and normal procedures be followed, but this deletion ignored that some may have license statements near the photo etc. darkweasel94 22:36, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per Stefan4. I agree with Darkweasel94 on the Facebook terms (You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook...); but the problem here is how we can ensure the uploader here (the Commons user) is same as the Facebook user. If both are same, there is no need to upload from a Facebook download. A few people in Facebook use "high quality" option in Facebook upload, and any filename here contains a "Facebook photo identity" can be a copyvio unless otherwise proved. Facebook prohibits users from posting content that violates another party's intellectual property rights. But unfortunately, it contains more copyvios than any other similar sites. Recently I saw File:Lime Butterfly Papilio demoleus.jpg there claiming copyright by another Facebook user and reported to Muhammad Mahdi Karim and the Facebook group hosted it. JKadavoor Jee 03:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am surprised that this undeletion request is even controversial. A Facebook image can, just like images from anywhere else, come with a license notice releasing it under a free license. If some of these images do not come with one or there are other problems, a "no permission" tag will certainly be appropriate, but we should give the uploaders a chance to fix that (through OTRS). This deletion was based on a wrong assumption, as the deleting admin has already said. darkweasel94 07:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored most of the files because the deletion rationale was obviously false. --McZusatz (talk) 07:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Angry robot.svg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Angry robot.svg, it doesn't make any sense to me. Rezonansowy (talk) 19:20, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Restored: No reson to delete. Yann (talk) 20:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sava Damjanov.jpg [edit]

Why was this deleted? It's a private, uncommercial photograph made by my friend whose permission to upload I have. What seems to be the problem?--Izviiskra (talk) 21:14, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reason it was deleted because it appears here. So it looks like it was copied from that website - and thus it was deleted as a copyright violation. You can find out more at Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle, Commons:Project scope/Evidence, and Commons:Deletion requests. Royalbroil 22:44, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that a private picture was on some journalist site was unknown to me until now. I repeat, this is a private, and non-commercial picture, it's even featured on a personal FB page of the writer in that picture. What must I do to upload the picture to WikiCommons? How is it my fault that someone took my picture and uploaded it on the internet before I did?--Izviiskra (talk) 23:28, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 01:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Carly Simon - 1970s.jpg[edit]

A deletion was requested due to a date discrepancy. A new search and a revised license should have taken care of it. However, it was deleted without explanation. When I asked the deleting editor to give the reason, they said it was because the backside of the photo was not shown. So that creates some questions:

  • Can a deleting editor simply delete an image for a reason unrelated to the original DR?
  • If so, should they be required to at least state their personal rationale?
  • Is the editor's rationale reasonable, since the front of the publicity photo had the imprinted name of the record label, which is where any notice would naturally be placed? Which, of course, ignores the fact that publicity photos were traditionally not copyrighted. --Light show (talk) 21:16, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • This was deleted because of the missing backside to verify your usual bogus claims of no notice. Expect all your images to be deleted if they don't show the backside. Too many of your "free" images were deleted because of begus claims, most of them under your old name Wikiwatcher 1. --Denniss (talk) --Denniss (talk) 22:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose The deletion requestor's admittedly paltry rationale was implicitly a concern of the license lacking substantiation. To call it a "date discrepancy" is a mischaracterization and ignores the genuine issue. The revised license of {{PD-US-1989}} requires demonstration of publication without a copyright notice. The uploader did not provide that substantiation. Thus this was not deleted for a “reason unrelated to the original DR”; it was deleted because the original license was demonstrated to be bogus (implicitly acknowledged by the uploader’s attempt to change it) with no alternative evidence for PD status being presented. Denniss should have articulated a reason, but COM:UD is not the venue for that discussion. Эlcobbola talk 16:26, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If there is some new copyright guideline that no longer accepts a copyright search as "evidence," can someone please provide it. Otherwise, all of the same criteria explained for BBWs last DR would relate to this one also. --Light show (talk) 19:11, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Too many of your "unsuccessful" copyright searches were successful by other users to prove your claims as wrong. That's why I and possibly some other admins count your claims as non-trustable unless you provide uncropped scans of front and back of an image (for no notice). Changing no notice to not registered/renewed after questioning the initial claims do not help either. --Denniss (talk) 19:27, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note that publicity photos after they are received by newspaper are simply filed away, to be used when some story needs it. That's why for this photo the tagging editor found three newspapers using the same photo for different articles and for different years, 1978 and 1984. The only other time an editor used the general term "untrustworthy" was when they blitz-tagged 44 and later 18 more publicity photos because they simply didn't agree with U.S. copyright law about publicity photos traditionally not being copyrighted. And I don't recall any publicity photos being found to have a copyright notice on the back and therefore removed. With a description and authorship printed on the front, like typical agency photos as this one, it goes against the Precautionary Principle to make that a requirement. --Light show (talk) 20:23, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also mention that for publicity photos without printed authorship on the front, I've simply contacted the seller to describe what's on the back, and if there's anything printed there to add it to their listing. They usually do that very quickly. --Light show (talk) 21:23, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just obtained a collection of older original publicity photos, and this one is included. The back is totally blank. I'll probably scan and upload some others for articles that need better images. Almost all are blank on the reverse, with a few having some number scribbles or handwritten name of the person. Should I also upload the reverse side if they're totally blank? If they're post 1977 I'll be checking for copyright registration in any case, which only takes a few minutes.
They're almost all music related, mostly pre-1980, of individuals and groups. So that brings up another question, about whether British groups or singers must be left off the list of possible uploads if the record label on the front is for a British record company. There are some with American labels, such as Warner Bros, and I'm not sure if those are OK. --Light show (talk) 20:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done There is no evidence presented to substantiate this (probably false) PD claim. -FASTILY 09:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Skyline de la Zona 14 de la Ciudad de Guatemala..jpg [edit]

Leer nuevamente bajo que licencia esta publicado http://www.flickr.com/photos/23617101@N07/5457982596/sizes/o/in/photostream/ "Algunos derechos reservados" Les agradecería por lo tanto su restauracion. Un abrazo. Robertson10 (talk) 06:08, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yann, I'm sorry, but I think you are mistaken. I put the two -- the deleted Commons image and the Flickr image cited in the first line above -- one above the other in a paint program, with the buildings at the same size and compared them. I can safely say that the two were taken at the same time of day -- the shadows match -- and from the same point -- a wide variety of building A obscuring building B confirms that. The deleted image is significantly cropped from the Flickr image, the colors and contrast have been modified, and it has been upsampled by about a third, but it's clear to me that they were taken from the same place at the same time. It is certainly possible that there were two different photographers there together, but I think that goes beyond our standard of "significant doubt". That makes the deleted image a legal DW which should be restored. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 23:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:OnischenkoOS.jpg [edit]

The file plays an important role in identifying a known Ukrainian academic Oleksiy Onyschenko on several Wiki pages. Was deleted because: 22:00, 30 April 2008 Maxim (talk | contribs) deleted page File:OnischenkoOS.jpg (Deleted because "In category Unknown as of 24 April 2008; no license/permission/source". using TW) (global usage; delinker log) The source of the file is an official release into public domain by V.I. Vernadsky National Library of Ukraine, where Dr. Onyschenko is the Director. The source of the image is http://archive.nbuv.gov.ua/people/oos_b.jpg The source page is http://archive.nbuv.gov.ua/people/oos.html No author's information is given and no copyright for the image has been asserted. Should have been tagged {{PD-UA-exempt}} Someonewriting (talk) 13:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{{PD-UA-exempt}} not applies, non of the criteria is fulfilled. Also the photo is not very old, it is in copyright. And it is in copyright even if there is no author named and even if there is no copyright mentioned. If the institution (or the person you mentioned) is the copyright holder then written permission is required. --Martin H. (talk) 15:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Martin. COM:OTRS permission is required -FASTILY 23:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bench monument on Latin Bridge, Sarajevo.jpg [edit]

This bench is built in 1914. See deletion request here. --Smooth_O (talk) 15:04, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you have to provide the year of death of the sculptor and the rationale, why it is in the public domain, supported by a reliable source. Otherwise, there is significant possibility that the author was still alive 70 years ago, which means that the image can't be hosted here. --Eleassar (t/p) 15:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Agreed. A sculptor who built a bench in 1914 could easily have lived past 1943. Generally, if we don't know when the creator died a work must be older than about 1885 for us to assume that it is PD. This applies in countries where the rule is 70 years pma (most of the world) and is different elsewhere, including the United States. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support, but open a new DR immediately thereafter. I think this is close enough to the line of COM:TOO and/or COM:UA to be examined more closely. I don't say or necessarily believe the first closure was wrong, merely that this seems to be enough of a borderline case as to warrant extended discussion (the DR was closed without comment beyond the nomination). The scope of Bosnia and Herzegovina law is "intellectual creation in the domain of literature, science and art," and I'm not entirely convinced this is art in the spirit of that scope. It may or may not be. Эlcobbola talk 21:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose It is customary to interpret "literature, science and art" in a very wide sense (here is a link for Slovenia, I don't believe this is differently in BiH, as the copyright in the two countries stems from the same tradition). Until the uploader proves that the depicted object doesn't qualify as art or that the sculptor died more than 70 years ago, I don't see any reason to undelete this file. --Eleassar (t/p) 21:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I restored this as per Elcobbola. IMO, this is very well witin ToO, and could also be in the public domain. Yann (talk) 07:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bonnkapälle på skive.jpg[edit]

The Original drawing is made by Eva Ahlqvist 1976 for this record that I produced for the orchestra "Bonnkapälle". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattpe (talk • contribs) 16:15, 18 November 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

In that case we will need a free license from Eva Ahlqvist using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. Once that is received from her, the image will be restored. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What Jim said. Requires COM:OTRS permission. -FASTILY 23:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:jinbyeol kim.jpg [edit]

[File:Jinbyeol kim.jpg|thumb|소개:jinbyeol kimCEO/Music Producerjinbyeol은 New Creation company CEO이며 Warner Bros. Entertainment music producer이다 1982년에 태어나 6살때 어머니가 암으로 일찍돌아가시고 장애인셨던 아버지와 첫쨰누나와둘쨰누나 1남2녀로태어났다처음에 그렇게 집안은 잘사는 편은 아니였다, 몸이 불편한 몸으로 아버지는 세남매을 힘들게 키우며 책임감을 보여줬다2000년대에 들어 사춘기에 매일 같이 사고만 치는 즉 비행 청소년으로 자라왔다 그러다 2001년쯤에 전에 연인이였던 여자친구를 피시방에서 기다리다 우연히 마술이라는 동영상을 보고 신촌 바그다드 마술카페에 들어서 마술 문하생으로 시작으로 마술을 시작하게돼었다,하지만 그렇게 길게 가지는 못했다, 마술카페에 않좋은 감정으로 마술을 접어고 또다시 사고만 치는 한 아이로 돌아왔다2005년대에 들어서 동네 선배에 소개로 음악을하는 선배를 만나 힙합을알게되고 음악이라는 것에 다가갔다,그리고 홍대 힙합클럽에서 직원으로 일하며 음악과 마술과 함께 종합하는 무대연출을 생각하게되어 매일 같이 연구에만 열중했다2013년에는 문화예술 프로젝트를 기획 하며 함께 할 팀원들을 모았다 .하지만 도움이되지 않고 또 다시 혼자만 남게되었지만 일본에 야욕에 귀를기울이게되어 독도문화 홍보프로젝트를 기획했다그래서 문화연출과음악은 기본에구성만 배우고 그다음은 나에 상상력으로 어떻게 새롭게 창조하는것이 중요하며 그것이 바로 정답이다라는 말을 중얼거리며 New Creation company (나에 상상력으로 새롭게창조하다)을 설립하게됬다네트워크를 계속해오다 Warner Bros. Entertainment Film producer를 알게 되어 독도에대한 질문을 주고 함께 협력하자는뜻으로 Warner Bros. Entertainment 에 직장이 바뀌었다]]

 Not done: File is not yet deleted; see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jinbyeol kim.jpg. Эlcobbola talk 21:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Reinhart Medaille 1.jpg[edit]

User:Túrelio deleted on Nov. 17th more than 100 files. He didn't check proberly all the subjects. So he deleted without any discussion or check the file mentioned above. He himself says, the file might be / could be / is perhaps an copyright violation ( [1 ] - german ), but he does not know and he hasn't checked it. The file should be imediately restore, and perhaps - if necessary - the copyright issue should be discussed and solved. --Hofphotograph (talk) 18:40, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This picture is a derived work of a medal which is eligible for copyright. In your description you state nothing about the copyright status of the depicted medal. It would be your duty as the uploader to prove that it is in the public domain or, if it is not yet in the public domain, to organize a permission by the copyright holder via OTRS. We cannot restore it without this information or the documented permission. On further research the photo appears to depict the obverse side of this medal which was granted for the first time in 1989. Hence, this appears to be still copyrighted. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at the file, please. I AM NOT the UPLOADER. --Hofphotograph (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see - that's hard after Túrelios precipitate action ... --Hofphotograph (talk) 21:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But you are asking for undeletion. This requires a documented permission through OTRS. You should start by researching the name of the artist. All this was not mentioned in the file's description. Basically, the description just stated that the photograph was taken by the uploader. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Agreed. It is not up to Túrelio to prove that the medal is copyrighted -- it is up to the uploader to show beyond a significant doubt that it is either PD or properly licensed, neither of which was even mentioned in this file description. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's ok. But: Why has Túrelio the right to delete the file
* without asking the uploader for the missing data
* without discussion
* without giving the community any chance to solve the issue - if there is one?
Túrelio deleted the file in a set of more than a hundered files in only one day - and he claims, that he has checked each of this files properly. May be, that there is an issue on the file. But I do not think, that the issue couldn't be solved. So restore the file and start an appropriate process to get the right license. --Hofphotograph (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The file was more than 2 years part of commons.
Now, there are no 2 months time to check the license, but Túrelio deleted the file in 2 minutes ...
--Hofphotograph (talk) 21:44, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Túrelio is an elected administrator and has thereby the trust of the community to handle speedy deletion requests. The request was notified on the talk page of the uploader. And Túrelio's speedy deletion was appropriate as this was an obvious derived work without any permission. We have to speedy delete a significant number of copyvios every day (c. 2000). If we don't do this, we get buried by copyvios and we can be grateful that we have admins like Túrelio who go through the speedy deletions nearly every day. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done The deletion was correct. File is not suitable for Commons -FASTILY 09:21, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:National Coming Out Day[edit]

Please undelete Category:National Coming Out Day. Thanks. Evrik (talk) 19:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 23:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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


File:Negrita.svg [edit]

Why this icon was deleted?

I trust in good faith, to the end, you decide not to recover that icon. I'll ask to delete all my icons, a sample list that below

A full list in User talk:Jameslwoodward --The Photographer (talk) 15:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As the person who proposed this file for deletion, i want to say that now having reviewed his other self created files, i believe his work is of high quality, and obviously doesnt need to be deleted en masse. This one file, since it would be highly unlikely to be used in an article (we have historic images that would work for any article related to the image), and also highly unlikely to be used in a Wiki project, due to its being a stereotype (or cartoon figure), and most projects would not use such an image to represent themselves, was thus proposed for deletion. I think i have stepped on their toes, and i would like to apologize to The Photographer for having assumed even the slightest poor intent on their part for uploading it. These impersonal internet relationships can so easily become anxiety provoking, even with the best of intentions.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 23:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, you're a good person. I have no absolute truth, so I just asked for a clarification. I hope you have a nice day :) --The Photographer (talk) 02:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was the closing Admin in this case. In closing it, I used our formal policy at Commons:Scope#Examples:
"Examples of files that are not realistically useful for an educational purpose: [and therefore should be deleted]... Artwork created by the uploader without obvious educational use".
We routinely delete personal art by non-notable artists. This image is unused personal art that will be offensive to a significant number of our users. While we certainly must keep many offensive images, including historical images on this subject, I see no reason to break our rule against personal art to keep this one.
The three images which Wilfedor cites above are in use and therefore irrelevant to this discussion. Also irrelevant are several wonderful images of his, including File:Wrist_and_hand_deeper_palmar_dissection-en.svg, which we are lucky to have. More to the point are a wide variety of unused personal images he has uploaded, including some that are apparently copyvios. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would be nice if another admin could carefully review this matter. You're very good in diverte the topic of conversation. You not only in that, you're also good in presuming bad faith and accusing me of placing my name as author of an image that were not mine (then you retracted it), yet, not content with this, you threatened to delete my future works in commons, cataloging of "not encyclopedic". Appearances can be deceiving, you are a good example of the excessive application of rules and a bad example of careless maintenance. Administrator need to be able to act objectively and not by emotional or hormonal outbursts. As I have said in her page repeatedly, I invite you to take a break. On the other hand, I invite another administrator to be objective and open-minded and study the case of the image and also James' conduct, since he not only did not handled the situation, but also used of premeditation and abused his "power" when he used of intimidation towards a user instead of supporting and help. This is a call to conscience to all admins who want to make this a better place and support the knowledge, morality and colaboration. --The Photographer (talk) 17:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Photographer, personally, I would not have deleted this file, but Jim and the nominator have some pertinent arguments. Please stay civil, and wait for input from others. Yann (talk) 17:32, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Thanks --The Photographer (talk) 18:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am inclined to grant the undelete request, based upon there being some misunderstanding between the DR nominator and The Photographer, and also because there is potentially scope for the image -- if one is wanting an icon of such a thing, then The Photographer's image would suffice for such a purpose -- we should remember that we are merely a repository and we allow others to decide what they wish to use -- we really shouldn't be making judgements for or against use on this project. russavia (talk) 01:57, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not making any comments about the picture; but unhappy with the way The Photographer responded to it, especially to the closing admin and the nominator by making a bunch of pointy DRs. Glad to see he understand his mistake and expressed a friendly note after that. JKadavoor Jee 02:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again -- historical images of this type are offensive to many, but we keep them for the very reason that they are part of our history. I don't see, however, why we should break our rule against keeping personal art for this offensive image. We don't need to delete it just because it is offensive -- we need to delete it because it is personal art and we should not be creating the precedent of keeping such works when we routinely delete them every day. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The icon is part of a well known stereotype, that has nothing to do with racism. Typing "negra" (spanish word) in google, the first page show a big quantity of images in the same "racial stereotype". "Negra" is a loving way to call a person in spanish. It's what I do with my grandmother and my father, both "negros".The icon itself is worthless to me. The icon problem is irrelevant, watching your reaction. You are a disrespectful and you do not deserve to be a administrator. It is very unfortunate, I feel very sad that such things happen in the project --The Photographer (talk) 20:51, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Photographer, if the image were to be undeleted, would you provided a detailed description in at least Spanish on the file page? This would surely give the image context, and perhaps make others less opposed to the image being on Commons. russavia (talk) 08:01, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Thanks --The Photographer (talk) 21:17, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. No strong consensus to keep this deleted, and it doesn't seem to be doing any harm. I can defineitly see potential scope for this, although it would be nice if the file's description could be updated. -FASTILY 02:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files found at Commons talk:Deletion requests/File:Pinemere sign.jpg[edit]

I'm nominating the sevensigns above for undeletion. It seems that the discussions were rushed and not always consistent. Let me refer you to these discussions:

Thanks! Evrik (talk) 21:27, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion seemed to boil down to whether or not a sign can be copyrighted. Some users made the argument that signs are meant to signal and can't be copyrighted. This is silly. What if I use a piece of magnificent art to signal where my art shop is? Signs qualify the same as any other art like a painting. The images are deleted so I can't tell but plain text signs can be PD due to not enough originality, so that may apply. Another user made the argument to keep them because not using the rationale above would open up the path to many signs on Commons to have to be reviewed. That's fine. You never hear the police not work because there are too many crimes. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 21:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of signs being taken down with little notice. If they are to be deleted, I am asking that they be moved to wikipedia and tagged

Thanks. Evrik (talk) 17:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that w:Template:Di-fails NFCC also should be added to most of them if moved there. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Each should be judged on its own merits. 22:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Feel free to transwiki these file(s) locally. I've made them available for download here -FASTILY 05:59, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I reviewed all of the images. In my opinion, almost the entire image is non-copyrightable fonts and simple geometric shapes - de minimus. It's the same as the child holding the Disney toy example at Commons:Derivative works. The photo cannot be used to illustrate the logo/artwork portion. Royalbroil 02:01, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've restored two signs which satisfy DM/TOO, but I  Strongly oppose restoring the rest. These signs incorporate what appears to be copyrighted/non-free material(s) in their designs, and there is no FOP for signs and/or 2D/3D works of art in the United States. -FASTILY 05:59, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the undeletion. I tend to agree with RoyalBroil, so saying those claims are egregious seems hyperbolic. ;-) In all seriousness. Can we take this to the legal question page at Meta and have them review this issue for FOP in the US before we delete any more images? Evrik (talk) 16:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:CC 08.jpg - Presumably the deletion issue (not clearly spelled out) was the Boy Scouts of America logo. While doubtless trademarked, I don't think this version of the logo is copyrighted. The current logo dates from 1978, but it's not the one here. http://www.virtualscoutmuseum.com/Galleries/Awards/awards.html shows numerous very similar logos from the 1910s, which is to say pre-1923. - Jmabel ! talk 16:53, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close. IMO this is a rather disorganized mass UDR pertaining to unrelated images (i.e. each depicts a different subject), that really should be examined individually. That said:

  • I will restore File:Napa Valley CA Photo D Ramey Logan 01.jpg, which was speedily deleted, for a DR upon request.
  • Any of the other file(s) in this request should be individually listed for undeletion (so we can have a discussion about a specific individual file, and only that file).

-FASTILY 05:33, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fairwater Wisconsin Welcome Sign.jpg and other community welcome signs[edit]

File:Fairwater Wisconsin Welcome Sign.jpg
File:Elk Rapids Michigan Welcome Sign.jpg
File:WisconsinRapidsSign.jpg
User:Fastily speedy deleted these files using the derivative rationale on Nov 12th. The topic of derivatives on road signs was discussed at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pinemere sign.jpg back in May. These signs are almost entirely basic shapes and fonts. Any artwork on these signs are de minimis. It's not artwork or a sculpture - it's just a sign marking a location. It's not a photograph of any minimal artwork on the sign. If consensus decides that these signs should be deleted, then so should almost everything under Category:Welcome signs in the United States. Royalbroil 01:41, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done for the first two per COM:DM. I'm not too sure about the swan in File:WisconsinRapidsSign.jpg, so a few more opinions would be nice. -FASTILY 01:58, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why should any of these welcome signs to be deleted under speedy criteria? I suggest a full deletion discussion next time instead of a unilateral admin discretion. Each sign is different and the community should be doing the interpreting. Royalbroil 02:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me tell you something about how things work here: if a file violates our policies (e.g. COM:FOP/COM:DW), we delete it. What you're suggesting is process for the sake of process, and that is an incredibly foolish notion. I also note you haven't done very much administrative work on Commons, so your dismissive demeanor and lack of regard for our rules is hardly surprising. -FASTILY 05:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm suggesting a more cautious approach instead of a unilateral discussion in marginal cases. Per speedy, the images need to be "clearly inappropriate" and a "clear copyvio". What is clearly wrong to you isn't necessary clearly wrong in my opinion. Speedy shouldn't be used in cases that aren't clear to everyone. That's what regular deletion exists for. There are LOT of FOP / DW images that are appropriately deleted via speedy. And I have deleted some of them. Royalbroil 13:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What a mess. I've restored the remaining file, File:WisconsinRapidsSign.jpg, for a DR. -FASTILY 03:09, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:The Hidden Wiki logo.png[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: IMO, this is image is ineligible for copyright, besides - it has nothing to do with US Copyright Office as an internet image. Please note that w:en:Hidden Wiki is not associated with USA. Rezonansowy (talk) 10:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed quite simple. Other opinions? Yann (talk) 11:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree, but do we know what country's TOO applies here? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hidden Wiki is not associated with USA or any other country. That's a hidden service running in whole Internet, so it applies rather to COM:NETCOPYRIGHT. --Rezonansowy (talk) 11:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I recognize that the Internet can make questions like "where was it first published" difficult -- particularly if the image was simultaneously uploaded to servers in several countries by a stealthy organization, but the question "what country's TOO applies here" has an answer, even if we do not know it. You have cited COM:NETCOPYRIGHT twice, but it argues against restoring this image -- it points out that all Internet images have a copyright (unless ineligible because they are too simple) and that we cannot keep images unless they are licensed. I do think there are countries, including the UK, where this might be over the TOO. In many others it would not. So "where was it first published" is a necessary question and unless we can get a good answer, COM:PRP requires that it remain deleted. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:28, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing as  Not done per COM:PCP, basically per Jim. We don't know the country of origin, and depending on that country's TOO rules, this file may not be free enough for Commons -FASTILY 23:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files of User:AmoussouWilfreed[edit]

See: Commons:Deletion requests/Files of User:AmoussouWilfreed

This DR was closed with the rationale that these were «Out of scope». Yet this deletion reduced in 50% the amount of media items we had on Category:Animism in Benin, it left us without any media related to students in Category:Education in Benin, and it left the Category:Roads in Benin without any media at all. (The 2nd rationale, «poor quality», is meaningless for media illustrating unique subjects.) Please undelete these three photos. -- Tuválkin ✉ 14:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose "Poor quality" can certainly apply when the image can't serve any educational purpose. The animism image shows several figures, but what is going on is impossible to tell because it is so small and so far out of focus. The others are simply poor quality, not for focus, but because they show half a face, or the back of a person walking down an unidentified road. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your rationale is impressive, James. I’m utterly overwhelmed. -- Tuválkin ✉ 00:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jim here. These images are really of very poor quality. Yann (talk) 07:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Extremely poor quality images. Definitely no consensus to restore -FASTILY 23:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:6x Leptons.jpg [edit]

This jpg is my own production just like all othersǃǃǃ

Perhaps you found this one at other sites of mine like Flickr. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leo Vuyk (talk • contribs)

Done -FASTILY 23:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gobi Montage.png[edit]

The montage was sourced from my own additions which are already present in commons.

[[12]] [[13]] [[14]] [[15]] Magentic Manifestations (talk) 14:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the file for you, but please update the file description page accordingly -FASTILY 23:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files of Category:GRCES Dragões de Vila Alpina[edit]

Três arquivos, recentes meus foram deletados, todos eles estavam na categoria mencionada no título. Apesar de não serem de minha autoria, eu tinha autorização para publicá-los, e o dono dos direitos autorais inclusive já mandou autorização OTRS, mas eu nem mesmo fui notificado sobre as eliminações.

Os arquivos são File:Dragões de Vila Alpina - ensaio da bateria.jpg, file:Dragões de Vila Alpina - bateria.jpg e file:Dragões de Vila Alpina - bateria (2). Leandro Rocha (talk) 17:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Was the procedure at COM:OTRS correctly followed? If so, please be patient, OTRS will restore the files once they process the email that was sent -FASTILY 23:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mas o procedimento padrão não era esperar 7 dias e só então deletar? Por que eu não fui avisado sobre as propostas de eliminação, como geralmente acontece? Leandro Rocha (talk) 02:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:kim jinbyeol.jpg [edit]

Why is the delete process? I do not understand 

Being a public wiki is not it?

For accurate and precise to photograph what reason is there?

What are you man?

Please handles Undelete

Blatantly out of scope. Commons is not for self-promotion. -FASTILY 23:47, 19 November 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]

Why is the delete process? I do not understand 

Being a public wiki is not it?

For accurate and precise to photograph what reason is there?

What are you man?

Please handles Undelete

Duplicate of the section immediately above. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Erroneous speedy for File:Isaac Stern - publicity.JPG[edit]

Per deletion request. --Light show (talk) 21:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done You have presented no evidence to substantiate this (probably false) PD claim. Given your horrendous track record, I doubt you can. Instead of trying to disrupt the project to make a point, either a) leave, or b) try to do something productive. -FASTILY 23:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Erroneous speedy for File:Elayne Boosler - HBO - 1989.jpg[edit]

Per deletion request. --Light show (talk) 21:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Same as above. You have presented no evidence to substantiate this (probably false) PD claim. -FASTILY 23:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Juli_D%C3%ADaz.jpg to undelete[edit]

Hola,

Solicito que por favor se vuelva a dar de alta la imagen que subí de Julieta Díaz. La misma fue tomada por mí como su representante oficial en un evento público, con lo cual tengo los derechos de la misma.

En caso que necesiten algo de mi parte, por favor háganmelo saber. Muchas gracias! Saludos, --Pochobarros (talk) 12:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we need something from you. You say the photo was given to you. At the upload you said its your own work. So the information you provided with your upload seems untrue, we need the true author and a written permission to a free the selected free license. --Martin H. (talk) 12:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done What Martin said. Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 03:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lion enrichment.jpg to undelete[edit]

There is no copyright problem with the image, I took the picture and I am the owner — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickeysamuni (talk • contribs)

 Not done what Jim said. -FASTILY 03:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Igreja em Bandeirantes 031206 3 REFON .jpg[edit]

Veja justificativa aqui (see): Commons:Esplanada#Fotos apagadas..... TKS Reynaldo Avaré Msg 13:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Image appeared on Commons before elsewhere on the web. Эlcobbola talk 15:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bandeirantes 021206 REFON .jpg[edit]

Veja justificativa aqui (see): Commons:Esplanada#Fotos apagadas..... TKS. Reynaldo Avaré Msg 13:38, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Image appeared on Commons before elsewhere on the web. Эlcobbola talk 15:51, 21 November 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/Files uploaded by Ultra7[edit]

Closing admin Jameslwoodward deleted these photos "per P 199", whose only rationale for deletion was that these were "failed, blurry photos". Restoration is in order here because frankly this was not remotely a policy based reason - per COM:SCOPE, "poor" or "mediocre" photos can be retained if they contain something "educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject". Looking at the images, it was plainly obvious that, despite the low quality, these images were sufficient to show details that are simply not present in anything else on the site currently or in the images that were wrongly claimed by Rod to be adequate replacements, as I outlined in my post of 13:29, 8 October 2013. Commons is not a repository of 'high quality' photography where usability is a secondary issue, it is a collection of educationally useful free media - if this deletion is not reversed, then it makes a mockery of that basic idea, and makes me question whether it's worth my time to continue to upload images here. Ultra7 (talk) 12:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose per the very section of COM:SCOPE you paraphrase. Files that are not realistically useful include those "that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject, especially if they are of poor or mediocre quality." To say that these images were "educationally distinct" from the images we still hold (e.g., 1 and 2) seems disingenuous, or to think rather poorly of the intellect of our readership. That these "irreplaceable" images were not even used in the en.wiki article (the only non-Commons article of which I'm aware) also seems rather telling. Эlcobbola talk 15:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it disingenuous to state the obvious - those supposedly replacement images did not show a number of details that were in the deleted images - I documented them in detail at the DR. What seems disingenuous to me is to claim that any old image of a tunnel is a replacement for any other, whether it's from the same angle or shows the same aspects of it or not. As for it not being used in Wikipedia - so what? There is nothing in COM:SCOPE that says the sole purpose of Commons is to illustrate Wikipedia - and the vast majority of files here are not used in any Wikipedia, so that's obviously an irrelevant reason to oppose this undeletion. There are a number of sites out there that seek to visually document this unique Metro system - it's those sort of media users you should be thinking of when I say that these images were irreplaceable. You're frankly insulting their intellect by pretending that to them, any old image of a specific tunnel is replaceable by any other. The fact is, thanks to this misguided deletion, the only place you can now get those visual details is from non-free sources. That's failing Commons basic mission - and if you only care about Wikipedia, well, if someone wanted to illustrate the construction method of these tunnels - they are now screwed - even though these image were perfectly usable for that purpose. Ultra7 (talk) 16:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere have I claimed "the sole purpose of Commons is to illustrate Wikipedia" or that "[I] only care about Wikipedia". I said their non-use seems telling; indeed, if these images were genuinely useful, one might expect a sister project with a related article to use them. Use in articles is thus an objective factor we can use to gauge usefulness, not the only one or the most important one. That is your fabrication and misunderstanding. Disingenuous, further, is claiming "the only place you can now get those visual details is from non-free sources" and that potential users are "screwed" when both of these images are still available on Flickr, their original source, with free licenses. Эlcobbola talk 16:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's an objective measure is it? Of course not. Unless 'Metropedia' is the next Wikimedia project that's going to be launched and I've never heard about it. It's no measure at all. The only way you can argue these images are not usable, is by addressing their content - something you seem to be deliberately avoiding. Why? Do you even know what the images are actually showing beyond the basic fact it's a tunnel? Can't you even for a second put yourself in the position of someone who would be looking for a free image of the specific details I outlined in the DR? Details that are, whether you realise it or not, not in the claimed alternate images. And yes, they can still be sourced from Flickr - and so can a whole lot of other images - but you know as well as I do that providing educational images is not the primary purpose of Flickr. And in this case particularly - they were not that easy to find on Flickr at all. But fine, if you want to send out the message that Commons is not the only place you should look if you want educational free images on things like the historical construction and fittings of Metro systems, I'm sure that will help the future prospects of Commons no end. If you want Commons to be just one of many photo hosting sites, just one of many free image sources, then it will eventually fail, because there are better alternatives to it in both those sectors. Commons is the only media site whose sole purpose is the organised curation of educational free content, and the fact is, deletions like this completely undermine that goal. Ultra7 (talk) 17:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the benefit of non-admins, here is the better one of the two images that were deleted. It really is beyond a joke that P 199 can get away with describing an image with even that level of detail despite the blurring as "unusable garbage", or others can get away with claiming that the details in that image are also visible in this or this image. These are not issues of subjective judgement, those two claims are quite clearly simply just wrong. Images are being deleted on Commons based on false claims like this, images that are irreplaceable, with absolutely no policy justification. Ultra7 (talk) 17:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose undeletion per Эlcobbola. --Avenue (talk) 03:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Эlcobbola is mistaken. Regarding "educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold", here are the indisputable facts: The images we do have of this station categorically do not show the rail mounting, they do not show the tunnel wall geometry, they do not show the overhead wires, and various other details too. Commons has ABSOLUTELY no other images of those details, and it is IMPOSSIBLE to replicate that image today because it has since been refurbished. Whatever Эlcobbola based their view on, it clearly isn't the actual images. Ultra7 (talk) 14:22, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    [Clarifying further as requested on my talk page.] I've looked at the actual images, and while they aren't identical to the other images we have, I see nothing educationally distinct about them. Given their poor quality (as assessed not only by me, but also by !voters in the DR), I think the DR closure was correct. I endorse their deletion, and oppose undeletion. --Avenue (talk) 17:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - I was the original deletion requester, and to my mind the images were out of scope at first glance. Having read this impassioned testimony, I am less sure, and am frankly minded to arbitrarily undelete just to put an end to this. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:48, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose The closing admin correctly assessed a consensus to delete. We shouldn't undelete "arbitrarily", we whould require a reason based on Commons policy. Rodhullandemu (talk) 14:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It should be noted that Rodhullandemu ended his participation in that DR after just one post on the actual issue at hand, with the comment "I've gone as far as I wish to go in this discussion" - claiming that the supposed replacement images satisfy the same purpose as the deleted images. As such, despite the fact that this would theoretically be part of a consensus building process which an admin would then be able to weigh, I wasn't able to question him further on what that supposed purpose was - whether he merely thought the purpose of these image is to just prove that the station actually has tunnels in some crappy sub-standard Wikipedia article, or whether potential re-users could be people interested in the various elements that are only actually visible in the images he insists should be deleted, that I've detailed extensively and repeatedly. Personally, I seriously doubt the admin weighed any 'consensus' here - not only because there was a complete lack of any actual discussion to be able to do so (ie the addressing and rebutting of each others points) - on his talk page he has all but admitted that he was just super-voting here based on his subjective opinion that because you can't see the precise method of rail fixing, it's not usable (and apparently I am very priveleged to have been able to get even that explanation, as he is ever so busy, so busy he is now exercising his 5th amendment rights over this issue). Ultra7 (talk) 15:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose undeletion of http://www.flickr.com/photos/thunderchild5/141100150/ as the image is blurry and hardly useful for any purpose. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:04, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It's useful to illustrate the tunnel wall geometry, the rails, overhead wire, station sign and wall panel alignment/sign font/lettering of this station at this point in time. Bearing in mind none of those details are visible in any other image on Commons, and the station has since been refurbished. 15:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I have now uploaded File:Haymarket Metro station tunnel cross section before refurbishment.jpg. It's utterly ridiculous that I have to do this when perfectly adequate free imagery giving the same details already exists, but I really have no other choice, not when there are so many people here seemingly unable or unwilling to accept the blindingly obvious - the details it references are not present in any alternate imagery already here (except the green panel colour), they were easily discernable even though the image is blurred, they cannot be replicated by any future photography, and they would obviously be useful to anyone interested in Haymarket Metro station or related topics (and as a matter of basic Commons policy, those people are not simply the sort of person who writes/reads Wikipedia articles). If anyone here, anyone at all, would like to challenge any part of my logic in this post, then I'm all ears. Ultra7 (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Clear consensus above that this is blatantly out of scope. -FASTILY 22:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:St Mary's Church, Noida.JPG[edit]

This image was taken by an anonymous person and does not have any License. The websites using it also do not have any license for the image. As such the image can be treated to be in public domain and permissible for reuse. Moreover I had edited it so I would be an owner (at least partially). SO I request it to be undeleted. --ScitDei (talk) 06:09, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, copyright rules do not work that way. All images have a copyright by default, so we need a formal written permission from the photographer. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, you didn't give me time to reply! How in the world am I going to find this anonymous guy and take his permission? Isn't there a process to conditionally use it until anyone objects? I don't think this guy really has any problem with this pic being used. If he had, he would have objected to its use in the NCYS website (which was quoted as pic source). And if he had, objected I would have known, because the admin of the website is my friend. --ScitDei (talk) 07:06, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is no such process, see COM:PRP. The codition to reuse something here under the terms of a free license (read en:free content, Commons:Project scope#Must be freely licensed or public domain) is that the copyright holder voluntarily agreed to that license. --Martin H. (talk) 09:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above. COM:PCP -FASTILY 22:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Burrero 1990 2009.jpg[edit]

This file is an own work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mololo (talk • contribs)

 Not done Derivatives of non-free content are forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 22:18, 21 November 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 Arose2[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: They have been approved and accepted under the OTRS Ticket number 2013092010017421. Under the CC-BY with Attribution License. Clarkcj12 (talk) 20:11, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done -mattbuck (Talk) 21:01, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:撮影現場in湯島聖堂.jpg[edit]

File:撮影現場in湯島聖堂.jpg was deleted as out of scope, but it should be in scope because, according to the file name and description, it is a picture depicting a team of Film production at work in Tokyo, Japan. Its source was [16]. I can assure that, as the file name indicates, it depicts a corner in en:Yushima Seidō. --whym (talk) 01:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Support - I agree it should be in scope, per the reasons stated above.-- Darwin Ahoy! 02:46, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Restored as per above. Yann (talk) 08:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

WinstonField.jpg[edit]

Deleted in 2008. Five years have passed since then, and as he retired from politics after his resignation, then it seems impossible that the photo was taken before 1964 or after.--Antemister (talk) 20:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose I'm not sure what you're saying. He was a Rhodesian politician, so UK rules apply -- 70 years pma. He was born in 1904 and looks 40 or 50 in this image, so it is conceivable that the photographer died before 1943, but "conceivable" and "acceptable for Commons" are two very different things. If you can show that there was a Crown Copyright for this image for some reason, then, since 50 years have passed, it may be PD, but that will require more proof. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:51, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, no Zimbabwan law should apply here...?--Antemister (talk) 22:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so, but I would be interested to have you say more on the subject. I think that we follow the law in place at the time and place the image was created or first published. (I'm glossing over all of the technicalities involved, and the choice of whether creation or publishing counts because I don't think they matter here). If the nation makes a change that is explicitly retroactive, then we use that. But in case where the nation changes -- either because borders move or because of de-colonization, then I think we stick with the law in place at the beginning. I recall (but can't find) several pre-1948 Israeli cases that followed British law.
However, that may be moot. I found the Zimbabwe Copyright Act at http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=130487. For photographs, the rule is fifty years from first publication, which still leaves it up to you to prove the image was published before 1/1/1963. However, there's more. The Act is quite explicit (at section 6) that it does not apply unless the work was first published in Zimbabwe, or the author was a "qualified person" -- a citizen or resident of Zimbabwe. Since Zimbabwe did not exist until at least 1965 and arguably until 1980, I don't think Zimbabwe law can apply. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:17, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article 6 suggests that Zimbabwe wouldn't protect foreign works at all, but there must be some other place somewhere which tells that foreign works are protected, considering that Zimbabwe has signed the Berne Convention and the TRIPS Agreement. The Swedish law says something similar: it says that the law applies to Swedish works, but then goes on by saying that foreign works may be protected due to various treaties. Protection of foreign works is instead described in detail in a separate document: sv:Internationell upphovsrättsförordning.
The question is possibly whether Zimbabwe counts as the legal heir of the British dominion of Southern Rhodesia. We accept {{PD-India}} for files from British India. However, USA might claim that works from the w:Government-General of Chosen are covered by a bilateral treaty with "Japanese possessions in Korea" (see w:Bilateral copyright agreements of the United States). This area is a bit unclear. --Stefan4 (talk) 02:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable copyright status without any clear consensus to restore -FASTILY 06:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sebastián Cordero.png [edit]

Hi, I got the image of Sebastian Cordero (I downloaded from a website that specified the Creative Commons 3.0 license that premitía share), and when I did the license 3.0 Press desired in which he asked the name of the author, and wrote respectively , but I see no reason why you marked my file as a "Possible copyright Violation". --Arkantos13 (talk) 21:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose You are correct that the source site is CC-BY, but it is a blog of sorts and probably does not have the rights to the image -- the CC-BY license covers only the text. The image appears in the same size on Facebook and a variety of other sites on the Web. In order to restore it, we will need a license from the copyright holder, which may or may not be the writer at the source site, using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What Jim said. This needs COM:OTRS permission -FASTILY 06:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:LSU Tigers Shield.jpg[edit]

The LSU shield is actually a photo from a stadium which should be acceptable. If not, I want to point out other examples of similar photos that will have to be deleted since they're exactly the same. I don't want someone breaking wikirules. I found this photo of Michigan Stadium: File:BigHouseSign.JPG. It is obviously a picture of a copyrighted logo from a photo of a stadium. Please remove this from all wikimedia. Thanks for your due diligence. I will definitely let you know if I find other like violations so they can also quickly be deleted. If this is not a violation, please add photo back to wikimedia. spatms (User talk:spatms) 12:48, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The logo in File:BigHouseSign.JPG is very simple and is acceptable under {{PD-textlogo}}. The shield design is more complex and has probably a copyright. I think ther are two possibilities to include this on Commons: 1. get a permission from the copyright holder of the shield; 2. Find out that this design was first published before 1977 without a proper copyright mention (unlikely, but who knows). Otherwise, the image could be transfered on the English Wikipedia under a fair use rationale. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:29, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Derivatives of non-free content are forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 06:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:CCTV-14少儿.png[edit]

Obvious and trivial case of basic geometry and text. The admin reasoning that they can not reproduce the shape is ridiculous, I can't personally hand-draw a circle without it looking all wonky but that doesn't mean a circle isn't basic geometry. Fry1989 eh? 20:56, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the shape in question isn't a circle -- it's a half circle with a filleted rectangle and a long tail. The logo is certainly right on the line of ToO. Taivo doesn't deserve "ridiculous" or "obvious and trivial". I think an apology is in order. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:35, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An apology?? Who are you kidding. I didn't say it was a circle, I'm using a circle as an example. To say "I can't make it, so it must not be simple" is absolutely ridiculous. There are tonnes of users here who could make this in inkscape with little effort. Fry1989 eh? 18:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done as pd-shape. Many of the examples listed at COM:TOO are significantly more complex than this. -FASTILY 06:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Front of the envelope with the "Copyleft (L)" sticker, mailed from Don Hopkins to Richard Stallman in 1984..jpg[edit]

File:Back of the envelope with the "Copyleft (L)" sticker, mailed from Don Hopkins to Richard Stallman in 1984..jpg

The file was deleted with no explanation, for no reason. It most certainly is my original work. If the person who deleted it didn't believe me, then he should have taken the issue up with me first instead of deleting it without any explanation. Please undelete it.

Xardox (talk) 04:59, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: A negligent editor deleted it without bothering to read what it actually said. The phrase "All rights reversed" has exactly the opposite meaning than the phrase "All rights reserved", which he mistook it for, totally missing the irony. He even copy-and-pasted the exact phrase that I wrote, "All rights reversed.", into the justification for deleting it. Unless he can make a case that the phrase "All rights reversed" has the same meaning as the phrase "All rights reserved", or that the term "Copyleft (L)" is copyrighted, then please undelete the image. Thank you.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Front_of_the_envelope_with_the_%22Copyleft_(L)%22_sticker,_mailed_from_Don_Hopkins_to_Richard_Stallman_in_1984..jpg&action=edit&redlink=1

04:47, 24 November 2013 Magog the Ogre (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Front of the envelope with the "Copyleft (L)" sticker, mailed from Don Hopkins to Richard Stallman in 1984..jpg (Copyright violation: "All rights reversed.") (global usage; delinker log)

  •  Support Although it's a good pun, it is negligent on your part to use "All Rights Reversed" on images because it invites this sort of error. It's also meaningless -- there is nothing "reversed" about the rights in a Copyleft -- the creator is still giving rights to the image user. Magog probably made the reasonable assumption that your "reversed" was a typo for "reserved". Now that you have explained that it is not a typo, I think we can restore these. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support. Obviously. An apology by Magog the Ogre would be nice, too. (Jameslwoodward’s desperate attempt at justifying him and his bullying of Xardox are on the other hand anthological.) Once it is undeleted, it should be tagged with a proper license tag with same meaning (CC-sa, I believe). -- Tuválkin ✉ 11:20, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already done by Magog -FASTILY 06:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tiger Rag (LSU)-Victory Flag (TU).jpg[edit]

It's a photo from my cell phone. Why deleted? B/C LGA determined it so?

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 06:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Niñas embera- Choco.jpg[edit]

The picture taken from http://www.flickr.com/photos/59266666@N02/7309171606/in/photolist-c8Tq57-bjqh94-ardhmN-ecRGxq-ecL52X-bv9tSu-dxwEYY-buape3-buap9N-bH5cf2-buai4C-buaizf-bBECcE-bQzj32-bBECzo-bBEC4s-buap33-dxviNL-buahTQ-9kpJh9-h8hB7W-drMV2f-drMUZh-dav24S-ckLY9q-dYMo6W-8Be1nK-93HyEv

have a licence under (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0), viewed here http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.es, i don´t understand why was deleted.

 OpposeCommons requires a license that is free for commercial use, so NC is not permitted, see COM:L. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done NC licenses are forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 06:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mark Spitznagel.jpg [edit]

This file was deleted in error. The suspicion that it was captured from video was incorrect. I snapped this at a video shooting without permission, but I nonetheless own the copyright. It only looks grainy and thus looks captured from video because I used my phone and couldn't optically zoom. Please undelete this file. Thank you.--Ronepaul (talk) 05:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough -FASTILY 06:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:US Navy 090813-N-5207L-087 Information Systems Technician 1st Class James Paisley assigned to Command Logistics Group Western Pacific, works with Republic of Singapore Navy Capt. K.C. Teo.jpg[edit]

The reason given by closing administrator is "It looks like the file was removed by Navy, for what appears to be issues pertaining to privacy." but the image hasn't been removed by Navy. It is in http://www.navy.mil/view_image.asp?id=75147 , and this has been clearly stated in deletion request discussion (twice). I think the closing administrator didn't have time enough to read the discussion, where consensus pointed to rename the image and delete personal information from description, just as it had been done in Commons:Deletion requests/File:US Navy 110916-N-RC734-057 Chief Information Systems Technician Shantishra Williams stands at attention as Chief Boatswain's Mate Dale Kintz dons h.jpg.--Pere prlpz (talk) 10:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right then. I've moved the file to a new name without any identifying names. -FASTILY 11:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sri Lankan Official passport.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I was get the phots 175.157.121.165 11:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No valid reason given to undelete anything -FASTILY 23:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Zdravljica.ogg [edit]

The deletion of this file can not be justified:

  • Text of national anthem is in public domain (author died in 1849)
  • Melody is in public domain as an official work published in the official gazzete and a free-reproduction is guaranteed by the Act Regulating national symbols of the Republic of Slovenia
  • Audio recording rights: {{MORS}}
  • Performers rights: Military orcestra is a governmental institution and their works are free (similar rules apply as for {{PD-USGov-Military-Army}}

However, anthemn should be used in accordance with Act Regulating national symbols of the Republic of Slovenia, which basiclly states one should not use official symbols in hate speech, etc. An external opinion by a proffesional lawyer (I forwarded it to OTRS) confirms that copyright law goes above this act. Situation is similar with files in this category, which are fine.

I would be happy it his DR could be first review by someone, who was not involved in either this or this debate. The user who opened this DR was already blocked temporarly because of nonsense/far-feetched DRs (which only result into lengthy unproductive discussions) on Commons and because of repeating personal attacks on Slovene Wikipedia. --Miha (talk) 11:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An undeletion request for this file has already been opened; see above. --Eleassar (t/p) 12:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing duplicate nomination. See #File:Zdravljica.ogg -FASTILY 23:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files deleted by Fastily[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: IMO these images were wrongly marked as copyvio and speedy deleted, without any discussion. Besides, they're enough simple to be under threshold of originality in US. Rezonansowy (talk) 15:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, restored for DR -FASTILY 23:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dusan zbavitel.jpg[edit]

There is permission for this file in info-cs queue (ticket:2013112010007713). --Harold (talk) 18:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 23:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Count.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Dear friends, Please do not delete this picture, I am the person who stands in the picture. Bradpi (talk) 18:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's Conde Tony de Sealand. This photo is from Wikia and is freely licensed under Cc-by-3.0 (see edit form). --Rezonansowy (talk) 19:00, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The photo hasn't been deleted (yet), so there is nothing to undelete. The place to discuss the deletion nomination, as clearly stated on the file description page and in the talk page notice, is Commons:Deletion requests/File:Count.jpg. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close as wrong forum/inactionable UDR: File has not been deleted -FASTILY 23:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:CC 08.jpg[edit]

Bringing up this one individually again, since my remark was merged into the exchange above, but appears not to have been picked up on. This was speedied without comment. Presumably the (unstated) deletion issue was the Boy Scouts of America logo. I don't think this version of the logo is copyrighted. http://www.virtualscoutmuseum.com/Galleries/Awards/awards.html shows numerous very similar logos from the 1910s, which is to say pre-1923. - Jmabel ! talk 19:06, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close as  Not done. Stale request without clear consensus to restore or any new comments for the past week -FASTILY 22:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Salon d'automne affiche Jaulmes.jpg[edit]

Hello Magog the Ogre. I request undeletion for this file. Gustave Jaulmes is a French painter who died in 1959. As the title and picture say, this poster was created for a 1921 exhibition in Paris, well over 70 years ago. This poster and others can be found in public auctions and antique bookshops where anyone can take a picture of them. Their pictures are therefore widely available free of rights. This is one such picture. Pensées de Pascal (talk) 08:19, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose Since the artist died in 1959, according to French law the poster will be under copyright until January 1, 2030. The copyright is almost certainly owned by the artist's heirs. The image infringes on the copyright and cannot be kept on Commons without permission from the heirs. The fact that there are many copies of it available does not change its copyright status. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done File will be copyrighted until 2030. -FASTILY 22:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fresque de la villa Kerylos (détail).jpg [edit]

Hello again Magog the Ogre. I request undeletion for this file. Gustave Jaulmes is a French painter who died in 1959. This painting is a fresco, part of Villa Kerylos, now a public museum in Beaulieu-sur-Mer, France, between Nice and Monaco, where it is authorised to take pictures. I visited Villa Kerylos in 2011, took this picture myself. There is absolutely no issue with this picture. Pensées de Pascal (talk) 08:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose Actually there is a clear issue. Since the painter died in 1959, according to French law the fresco will be under copyright until January 1, 2030. The copyright is almost certainly owned by the painter's heirs. The image infringes on the copyright and cannot be kept on Commons without permission from the heirs. The fact that the museum permits photography is entirely independent of the copyright status of the work -- you may certainly take pictures of a copyrighted work for your own use and the museum's permission covers that and only that. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:21, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done File will be copyrighted until 2030. -FASTILY 22:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Elektrarna Brestanica.JPG[edit]

Industrial building. No copyright. Yann (talk) 11:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Industrial buildings are copyrighted just as any other. Per [17] (pg. 63/64): "The term 'architectural work' applies to the whole spectrum of intellectual creations; from residential buildings, museums and industrial structures to bridges, parks and entire parts of cities (i.e. works from the fields of architecture, urban planning and landscape architecture)." --Eleassar (t/p) 12:18, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand TOO in Slovenia in high for utilitarian objects and this is an utilitarian structure. --Sporti (talk) 12:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm hearing this for the first time. As stated in the quote, industrial structures belong to the fields of "architecture, urban planning and landscape architecture" (Article 5, pt. 9), not "works of applied art and industrial design" (Article 5, pt. 10).[18] --Eleassar (t/p) 12:37, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, your interpretation is new. We have always kept pictures of industrial buildings upto now. Yann (talk) 12:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have we? [19], [20] --Eleassar (t/p) 12:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your first example is a mall, so not an industrial building. And the second is IMO a mistake. It should not have been deleted. I include them in this request. In all legislations, architecture is protected as "work of art". But these are NOT works of art, just technical designs. Yann (talk) 13:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose, per the above reliable source, and no evidence for the claim that "we have always kept pictures of industrial buildings upto now". --Eleassar (t/p) 13:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you run out of arguments. You don't understand text law when you read then, you cite them without understanding their meaning, that's why your DRs create so many problems. Yann (talk) 14:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I just find it a waste of time to continue this discussion (and we're discussing a specific file here, not my DRs whatever you think of them). As I have nominated this file for deletion in the first place, I've found it necessary to clearly state my opinion and will now let others to say theirs. --Eleassar (t/p) 14:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But your arguments there are wrong. If you don't have the time to find valid arguments to justify your requests, don't create them in the first place. You waste MY time. If you don't take the time to understand what are the legal meanings of "threshold of originality" and "work of art", which YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND now, do not create DRs. Yann (talk) 14:19, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per Yann, above:

"In all legislations, architecture is protected as "work of art"."

That is not correct. Architecture, in all of the copyright laws I have read (perhaps two dozen), is covered separately from "works of art" as "architecture". In the United States, architecture was not covered at all until 1990, although architectural drawings were. Until then you could freely build a copy of a Frank Lloyd Wright house as long as you didn't use his drawings. I have not seen any case law that suggests that there is a ToO for architecture anywhere.

I also note that the Slovenian law gives architecture more emphasis than most -- it has a separate paragraph, while in most other countries, it is just one word in a list with painting, sculpture, etc:

"Article 5 (2)9. works of architecture such as sketches, plans, and built structures in the field of architecture, urban planning, and landscape architecture"

which I infer means that the Slovenian lawmakers want architecture to be better protected than in other countries. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim. It looks like these works are, in fact protected by copyright -FASTILY 22:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kushiro_bus_Ku200F_0141.JPG [edit]

User who requested deletion stated "The Lupin III author Monkey Punch is still alive and the copyright is in effect." as the reason. That does not apply in this case, the image was a transportation bus officially licensed to use images of Lupin III and was taken and uploaded to Commons by the person who took the photo. The other three images deleted, File:Kushiro_bus_Ku200F_0144.JPG File:KUSHIRO BUS.JPG , File:Rupin3.JPG , in the same nomination using the same reason should also be undeleted. These free images attest to the popularity of the Lupin III series and add to its Wiki article. Xfansd (talk) 15:29, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose There is no reason to believe that that license extends further than the bus. Just because a copyrighted graphic work is displayed in public in Japan -- whether on a poster, a billboard, or a bus -- does not mean that somehow that copyright goes away. All of these images infringe on the copyrighted art shown on the bus. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:02, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is ludicrous. So every image at Category:Pokémon trains and Category:Pokémon Jet is a copyright violation? Xfansd (talk) 16:18, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In general, yes, although de minimis will apply in some cases. While there is much about copyright law that defies common sense, this is actually straightforward -- the graphics of Lupin and Pokemon have a copyright, just as those of Mickey Mouse do, and any photograph, drawing, painting, or other copy of them will infringe on that copyright. There are exceptions in some countries, but they do not apply in Japan.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:26, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done derivatives of non-free content are forbidden on Commons. Also, please note that files nominated for deletion are judged on their own merit, and not in comparison to other files -FASTILY 22:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Contraportada.JPG[edit]

Hello such, goodnight. He writes Alan Flores the reason for my statement is that please remove the violation of copyright because it despite not being my work I have received permission from the publisher of the book, which enables me to use these pictures, the letter here is the show no more for the moment and I leave hoping that responds promptly to my release, thank you very much and looking forward to this asset.

Sincerely Alan Flores

No as the page where I herewith authorizing the use of images could provide a page for me please pass it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alan Flores (talk • contribs) 06:05, 27 November 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 09:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gtrunout2.jpg [edit]

I made the picture myself, with the written approval of the car's owner. Thus I have all the rights on it and I decided to share it on Commons and Wikipedia. I thus request its undeletion. Regards --Lametropolitana (talk) 09:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS:_ File:Gtrunout2.jpg is different from File:Gtrunout.jpg. In the former (now deleted), I wiped out the plates' numbers.

Kind Regards --Lametropolitana (talk) 09:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's Gtrunout2.jpg: [21]. You can decide which one you like better and upload at File:Gtrunout.jpg -FASTILY 22:54, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dilation and Contraction Effects In Waves.pdf[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I would request this file be undeleted. It is not plain text, it is original material, it is of an educational nature. If it is not within the scope of Wikimedia Commons, I request that it be moved to Wikisource which can include "Original, encyclopedic, popular articles on relativity, physics, biology, and other sciences". This IS an original article on relativity. The history of the file is important as it lists the thought process behind the current document. Varun Chatterji (talk) 11:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By your own description, this is inappropriate for Commons, but appropriate for Wikisource. Here is the original file and description: [22], [23]. Please upload this at wikisource -FASTILY 23:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Galaxy Studios Facility.jpg[edit]

File:Galaxy Studios Facility.jpg I made this picture myself at my work at the Galaxy Studios in Mol. The image will be used for an article about the Galaxy Studios Facility in Mol that is almost ready for review by Wikipedia. There is one more image that I took myself outside the facility of the Galaxy Studios logo. ( I will send in a diffrent undeletion request for that one.


I hereby affirm that Ton Eijkemans the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of File:Galaxy Studios Facility.jpg

I agree to [publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported" and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).]

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

Ton Eijkemans Bogardeind 225 5664 EG Geldrop Email: ton@galaxystudios.com

Marketing associate Galaxy Studios

27 November, 2013

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 22:54, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Denise Pearson, live at the Hammersmith Apollo, Mar 2013.jpg[edit]

I am the owner of this photograph, and the artist, Denise Pearson, is signed to our company Baronet Entertainment.

We have the full rights to publish this picture and distribute it freely.

--Goofball69 (talk) 18:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 22:54, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Borivoje Grbic.jpg[edit]

The image was deleted with the argument that there is a full size version in Flickr marked All Rights Reserved. However, the author himself seems to have willingly released this particular image with a CC-3 license on this website - http://upps-sajt.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1332&Itemid=2 . I can't read Serbian, but from the Google translation seems to be a legit directory of writers and authors where they put their profile for contact and promotional issues. In that case, I believe it should be restored.-- Darwin Ahoy! 22:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose I don't see where the site says profiles are author-submitted. You might be referring to "Autor Студио С.О.К.О." (Author: Studio S.O.K.O) at the top but, looking at the other profiles from numerous firms suggests that that field is populated by the studio by which a given person is employed. Non-offical authorship is supported by the credit ("Tekst: Studio S.O.K.O. / Vikipedija. Fotografija: Borivoje Grbić / Studio S.O.K.O. ") which implies the content was merely lifted from the Wikipedia site, image included. This image needs an OTRS ticket to be retained. Эlcobbola talk 16:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I don't believe the image was "lifted from Wikipedia". It was on the site with that license already before it was uploaded to Commons using the same license. My opinion is that the whole operation seems to be legit and with the writer participation or knowledge. However, I would understand the doubts and need for an OTRS.-- Darwin Ahoy! 16:38, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close as  Not done: Stale discussion (no new comments for a week) without any clear consensus to restore -FASTILY 23:13, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

Undeletion request for File:20130923 Manyara4829 Guepier.jpg and File:20130925 Serengeti5252 Aigle ravisseur.jpg[edit]

File:20130923 Manyara4829 Guepier.jpg (Picture of a Little Bee-eater in Tanzania)
File:20130925 Serengeti5252 Aigle ravisseur.jpg (Picture of a Tawny Eagle in Tanzania)
I'm the author of theses pictures, I correctly filled in the Commons upload form, I sent a email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org with the appropriate template and I left a message to User talk:Smooth O (who deleted the file).
--Fstoger (talk) 09:32, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your files will be restored once OTRS processes the emails you sent. Your continued patience is appreciated. -FASTILY 23:13, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

danielestrem.jpg[edit]

The image was passed to my by Daniel Estrem himself to post it here, so it does have no copyright attached to it. --Elandroid (talk) 13:00, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 23:14, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

Canal_IIGD_20.jpg[edit]

Why the logo has been deleted??? Is a television logo of the Brazil, can't be deleted!!!

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 23:13, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Michel-peissel.png[edit]

This is a piece of art, realized based on a photo, but it is an artistic creation, the copyright is not that of the original photo, but that of the creator. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 18:08, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Derivatives of non-free content are forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 23:13, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Eytan Majar.jpg[edit]

An OTRS permission was received see Ticket:2013112810011481. Thanks Hanay (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 23:13, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2013-11&oldid=358736134"