Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2008-12

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

Image:LeToyab.jpg and Image:LeToya.jpg

I've uploaded the image, in following guidelines for media uploaded from Flickr, but this admin Platonides, engaged a delete war with me, so pls, help me out. Eduemoni (talk) 23:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These images are not free, as can be seen from the meta data stored in the images (admins check deleted images, other users please see deletion log). You were told several times not to upload the images, but you continued uploading these unfree images to the Wikimedia Commons, first removing the meta data, then flickrwashing them. I see good reason to block you, as you are obviously not willing to contribute productively following the project rules, but I will leave that to the discretion of another admin. Stop uploading copyvios or you will be blocked. Seriously. If those were really taken by you (which I doubt, as the meta data clearly indicates two seperate authors and image agencies), make the agencies write an e-mail to the OTRS, saying that you are the creator of these images and are free to do with them whatever you like. Unless we get that mail, do not attempt to reupload this content. For the above reasons, this is Not done. -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 00:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:George Grosz, Café.jpg

I want to read a reason for this deletion. Not only a reason. I mean: a real good reason. Mutter Erde (talk) 20:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support undeletion. It sounds like artists need to give up derivative rights on stamps made from their works (obviously, the copyright on the original is unaffected I would assume...). Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For me the German Law is very clear, it says all official work is free, means PD. --NobbiP 02:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. Lupo 10:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Photo 102708 001.jpg

What's this ?????? Mutter Erde (talk) 22:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this moment closed by a bot. Can't believe it . Mutter Erde (talk) 22:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the deleted en Wikipedia page describing the alleged game gets restored there may be some use for this image, but the uploader is not seriously trying to upload useful content. Out of scope is right.--MichaelMaggs (talk) 23:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not done We host image that can be used in articles. This image has no article so it is out of scope. When the article returns on a wiki (And is stable enough that it wont get deleted again) it can be undeleted. Sterkebaktalk 09:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be a very quick guy, see undeletion request "svgs" above. Should I write one for another wiki - only for you? Mutter Erde (talk) 09:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't just open an undel request like that, I suggest you next time try talking to the one who closed the undel request, or the original deleter. Also, what educational use does this image have? --Kanonkas_(talk) 02:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Belfast murals

Two images of murals in Belfast were deleted with the comment/reason, "derivative work, no freedom of panorama in Ireland for murals". In fact, there are two jurisdictions in Ireland and it looks like these were deleted with regard to law in the Republic of Ireland ("not covered by §93 of the Irish Copyright and Related Rights Act, 2000" -- Vadakkan - this act appears to be Republic of Ireland legislation). Belfast however, is not in the Republic of Ireland. Belfast is covered by British law and Northern Irish law.

I'm not familiar with enough with the law as regards to copyright, though I think this deletion needs reassessed in light of the error made in the first instance.

So far as I can see, according to the UK Intellectual Property Office, exceptions to copyright include "Non-commercial research and private study", "Criticism or review, reporting current events", "Teaching in educational establishments", and "Sufficient acknowledgment". Also included are "Publicly situated works". --Setanta747 (talk) 19:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only of these relevant for us might be "publicly situated works" (the others all are "fair use"-like copyright exceptions that are not accepted here), but if you look at the UK Copyright Act itself, this exception for works in public places does not extend to paintings or murals. Lupo 20:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I view the UK Copyright Act and what Act, if any, covers (photographs of) paintings and murals etc (and where can I view that Act)?

I think there must be a case for these well-known murals to be covered (that is, allowed, given the context of Wikimedia) under some publication law or some other law. Considering the murals are ongoing 'events', very much a part of the culture and recent (and current) history of Northern Ireland. Many are being replaced due to the current, less violent, political climate; many others are being preserved and maintained. Many are also unique in that they portray individual events or 'emotes'.

I would suggest that we let this request sit for a while so that some experts can investigate the situation (though you may be one such expert yourself, Lupo) and discuss possibilities. --Setanta747 (talk) 00:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COM:FOP#United Kingdom will give you all the information you need to verify what Lupo has said. There is also a link there to the actual statute. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say I needed to verify what Lupo has stated. See my comment above for how I think we should proceed. Thanks for pointing out the link to the FOP section on here - it might positively solve the issue. See Section 57 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. --Setanta747 (talk) 20:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's "anonymous works". You're grasping at straws here. Neither mural looks as if the unknown author died long ago enough. Lupo 20:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm sure that somebody here can find some legislation of precedent to satisfy the need to show representations of these murals. I'm not "grasping at straws" - rather, I am asking for your help. Other publications seem to have solved the problem (many books etc), including the CAIN website. --Setanta747 (talk) 14:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe one could regard the copyright of anonymous murals, graffiti, etcetera as res derelictae, abandoned objects, cast by the wayside, free for anybody to pick up, public domain. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a quasi-official Wikimedia Commons policy stating that photos of illegal graffiti are generally OK, but that isn't necessarily the same thing as anonymous murals... AnonMoos (talk) 10:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:DanceofLife.gif

This picture is a derivative of a picture by Edvard Munch, whose work will be in the public domain by 2015. However, my reworking in my opinion is not a copyright violation. A parody can be seen as a new work even if the original is still protected by copyright.

The work as I uploaded and made myself, can be seen as a pastiche or parody with its own worth. It presents an new original view on the original work, in such a way as it exaggerates the sexual content of the front pair - the man forever wanting to touch the butt of the female, and the woman forever slapping his face - and thereby also changes the looks of the other persons on the picture. The woman on the front right, now poses as a frigid woman being very jealous, and the background pairs will not show as happy as they seem to be - they now are bound to follow the example of the front pair as as an eternal iteration of human love, hate and life. The animation therefore adds to the original and as a parody, does not violate copyright law. - Art Unbound (talk) 22:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Yes, parodies can be a new work, and they can even have their own copyright, but if they incorporate large portions of something still in copyright then they cannot be hosted on Commons. -Nard the Bard 22:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not true in my opinion, if the derivate work gives a fresh and original view of the original. Andy Warhol's representation of the Campbell soup cans is a new work, and so is my animation - even more so if you look at the Warhol representation of the Mona Lisa. A parody is not a copyright violation, as far as I know. My work is a parody. - 194.109.245.121 23:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC) I suddenly got unlogged, sorry for that - Art Unbound (talk) 23:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Oppose Please have a look on Commons:Derivative works, Art Unbound. Your picture really was a forbidden, derivate work. -- Ra'ike T C 00:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not forbidden in law. Commons:Derivative works is for the most part just commons policy. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it's forbidden by Commons:Derivative works, Commons will have the rights it deserves. I will have had the pleasure that becomes me. - Art Unbound (talk) 00:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not done --MichaelMaggs (talk) 23:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

undelete

UNDELETE

(Aktuell) (Vorherige) 01:50, 10. Nov. 2008 CommonsDelinker (Diskussion | Beiträge) K (4.448 Bytes) (image:Toni_Plankensteiner_in_Neustadt_24_3_42_nsz_westmark.jpg entfernt, wurde auf Commons von Maxim gelöscht. Grund: Deleted because "Missing essential inf) (entfernen) [gesichtet von CommonsDelinker]
(Aktuell) (Vorherige) 01:49, 10. Nov. 2008 CommonsDelinker (Diskussion | Beiträge) K (4.595 Bytes) (image:Toni_Plankenstiner_im_Arbeitslager.jpg entfernt, wurde auf Commons von Maxim gelöscht. Grund: Deleted because "Missing essential information: license/permission/source") (entfernen) [gesichtet von CommonsDelinker]
(Aktuell) (Vorherige) 01:49, 10. Nov. 2008 CommonsDelinker (Diskussion | Beiträge) K (4.695 Bytes) (image:Toniinnsbruck.jpg entfernt, wurde auf Commons von Maxim gelöscht. Grund: Deleted because "Missing essential information: license/permission/source". using TW) (entfernen) [gesichtet von CommonsDelinker]
(Aktuell) (Vorherige) 01:48, 10. Nov. 2008 CommonsDelinker (Diskussion | Beiträge) K (4.757 Bytes) (image:Toni_7.jpg entfernt, wurde auf Commons von Maxim gelöscht. Grund: Deleted because "Missing essential information: license/permission/source". using TW) (entfernen) [gesichtet von CommonsDelinker]
(Aktuell) (Vorherige) 01:48, 10. Nov. 2008 CommonsDelinker (Diskussion | Beiträge) K (4.830 Bytes) (image:Toni_12.jpg entfernt, wurde auf Commons von Maxim gelöscht. Grund: Deleted because "Missing essential information: license/permission/source". using TW) (entfernen) [gesichtet von CommonsDelinker]
(Aktuell) (Vorherige) 01:47, 10. Nov. 2008 CommonsDelinker (Diskussion | Beiträge) K (4.925 Bytes) (image:Toni_plankensteiner_dornbirner_marktplatz_april_1938_anschluss.jpg entfernt, wurde auf Commons von Maxim gelöscht. Grund: Deleted because "M) (entfernen) [gesichtet von CommonsDelinker]
(Aktuell) (Vorherige) 01:47, 10. Nov. 2008 CommonsDelinker (Diskussion | Beiträge) K (5.047 Bytes) (image:Tobias_6.jpg entfernt, wurde auf Commons von Maxim gelöscht. Grund: Deleted because "Missing essential information: license/permission/source". using TW) (entfernen) [gesichtet von CommonsDelinker]

BECAUSE...

all these pictures belong to me or my family (for I am his great-grandson). I gave the source and I allow them to be shown! they are rare and valuable! they need to be there!

so what to do? and who deleted them?! It was some work too!

they used to be here... de:Anton Plankensteiner

thank you, matthias

I don't know that language but this "Missing essential information: license/permission/source" was part to the edit summary when they were removed from that article.--Paloma Walker (talk) 16:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Matthias ! Bitte erlaube mir eine kurze Rückfrage: Bist du der Urheber der Fotos (so wie es in der Bildbeschreibung angegeben war) ? Grüße, →Na ·gy 16:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now. →Na ·gy 20:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Foreskin 2.JPG

put it back!

Please sign your posts and state which image you want undeleted, and why. --rimshot^talk 07:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd really like you to reconcider the deletion of my file: Foreskin_2.jpg. I visit wikipedia commons a lot and i also see lots of low quality images on the site. That's the main reason why i decided to upload a good quality picture which can be used. Also there aren't any black males contributing in the penis section and i think that lots of people would like to see what's different. Thank you for reading this --Digitalkil (talk) 14:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a quality-image in the sense of our criterias for quality images, just a typical penis-pic. And the person who was photographed did a bad job with the shave in the genital area. It distracts from the subject of the image. -- Cecil (talk) 18:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Commons is not an amateur porn site

Thank you for your interest in contributing to Wikimedia Commons, a non-profit media repository with the primary scope of providing educational and informative images and media. Submissions that are low quality or do not fall into Commons' scope may be subject to deletion.

One or more of your recent contributions has been identified by another Commons user as a possible image not in Commons' scope. Commons has guidelines on nudity, as a result of already having a large number of photos of genitalia, specifically the male reproductive system and the penis. Persistent uploads of low-quality images of genitalia will result in being blocked from editing.

If you have objections to the proposed deletion of your image(s), please see the links to the relevant deletion discussion(s) (listed above or below this message box). This message is not intended to be taken personally. Thank you for your understanding.

See right. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. →Na ·gy 20:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The City of Love

Dear Admins, I was trying to upload an image of the cover of my book The City of Love, but it was deleted by the system. I get an error message when I try to reupload, but the error log denies any record of the deletion. Please undelete this file for me. Thecityoflove.jpg Rimibchatterjee (talk) 19:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on User talk:Rimibchatterjee. →Na ·gy 20:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Ramsau-extra F16.gif

This photomontage was created by several users in the course of a discussion on retouching images. Originally there were missing sources and authors. Meanwhile these informations are added. Please undelete. --AM (talk) 15:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here Forrester voted KEPT, but the pic was deleted nevertheless?? --AM (talk) 17:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Has been used on several pages, sources were present. -- smial (talk) 01:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the deletion log from 30. of august 2008 [1] Forrester gave this reasen for deletion: Derivative work: Red sky is DW without documented permission. Now I found the source image of the sky. It was used by Rainer Zenz in this photomontage, which was itself the source picture of Image:Ramsau-extra F16.gif. --AM (talk) 12:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I don't think there are any more copyright problems. --wau > 19:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. →Na ·gy 21:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:All_the_washing_powder_you_can_get.jpg

Most of the logos are pd-ineligible wordmarks. Possibly Tide was copyrightable but it fell under COM:DM. -Nard the Bard 11:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Nard the bard. Evrik (talk) 20:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support See precedent discussion. This is a really difficult thing. You could get away with lots of old stuff :P.Mitch32^{(Want help? See here!)} 00:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was this image the one from Flickr here? If so... yes, to me all the bits of copyrightable artwork are obviously de minimis. Undelete. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. →Na ·gy 21:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

undeletion the capital.jpg

its a snaps shot that i make genuinely — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.89.123.1 (talk • contribs) 03:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

no such image exists ... Evrik (talk) 14:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to do. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Doomsday rule

I deleted this as it was not a gallery - one image and over four paragraphs of encyclopedic text. I've suggested to the creator, User:Evrik that it should be re-created as a gallery, which prompted this short exchange. — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 17:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't ask for this to be placed here. I think you overstepped and are now looking for support for your decision.

It was a gallery. I can strip out the extra text if necessary. Of course, since you've deleted it, the average user can't decide for themselves. It would have been nice if you had asked me to strip out the extra text before you went ahead and summarily deleted it. Evrik (talk) 18:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evrik, what did you intend to put into the gallery? It seemed to be almost all encyclopedic text which was more suitable for Wikipedia. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Originally, the page was meant to be March 0, and the first image on the page was Image:Doomsday rule.jpg. It was suggested that instead of a March 0 gallery I make the March 0 a redirect to Doomsday rule with interwikis to de:Doomsdaymethode, en:Doomsday rule, es:Algoritmo Doomsday, ko:둠스데이 알고리즘, pt:Algoritmo Doomsday and sh:Doomsday pravilo. Also, the gallery would have given context to the image which falls under Category:John Horton Conway.

I'm bothered by what's gone on here. What exactly does "Doomsday Rule should perhaps be re-created as a gallery." mean? It was a gallery. I didn't ask for the gallery to be placed here. If User:Mike.lifeguard had asked me, I would have stripped out the text and left a minimal gallery. I may have also added some more images given more time. The gallery should have gone to Category:Non-media deletion requests. Evrik (talk) 19:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete it for 2 weeks, so that everybody gets an own impression what you are talking about Mutter Erde (talk) 19:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That would be fine with me. When that happens, you can just redirect March 0 again. Evrik (talk) 21:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the text is the problem, couldn't the text just be edited down or deleted without deleting the entire page? Seems a less drastic option, and one that is undoable by non-admins if appropriate. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Carl, I mean one could have just removed the text if that was the problem. The gallery however had an image and IMHO I think this is well within our project scope. --Kanonkas_(talk) 22:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - This goes to my original point. I could just add the text again, but since I think its deletion was wrong in the fist place, I'd like it restored. That's what I asked User:Mike.lifeguard to do in the first place. Evrik (talk) 02:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored it for everybody to see it even though I agree with Mike that this deletion was ok. This definitely is not a gallery but an article (it even has references and weblinks like a typical article). If you Evrik want it to stay then reduce it to the two sentences in the first paragraph, otherwise somebody else will do it for you. -- Cecil (talk) 09:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have done that. If I had been given that option to begin with I would have reduced all the extra text. Evrik (talk) 17:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tamaskan Wolfdog

why was the following link deleted? Tamaskan Wolfdog? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksettineri (talk • contribs) 21:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Empty category or gallery: only image was deleted as a copyvio" Evrik (talk) 14:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Curious ... how is it different than Tamaskan? Evrik (talk) 14:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Commons:First steps

Yes, let's delete anything that makes Wikipedia/Wikimedia potentially easier to use. After all, we wouldn't want that to happen...

The URL http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/First_steps (referring to easy methods to Upload photos or art) and its associated photographs was deleted a short time ago by a group of seemingly overzealous, now defunct admins/editors with (judging by the limited and restricted arguments presented on their personal Talk pages - the only places comment is reasonably locatable at this point) poorly-reasoned, if not completely invalid reasons for deleting the space and whatever associated work may have accompanied it. Even if the contribution was unfinished, it would have been an effective starting place to build upon for what is now a laborious, cumbersome process - finding out how to upload photos on Wikipedia. (The Wikipedia entry refers to the Wikimedia instruction manual as the "biblical" source for further review - hence, the entry for the Undeletion Request being made here.) The original source of "instruction" originates from Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Upload, where any straightforward help and instruction comes to a startling halt. Nicely done... Stevenmitchell (talk) 05:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you looking for Commons:First steps? If so, you might consider your words before levelling such accusations for no reason. Please also note this is Wikimedia Commons, not Wikipedia. — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 06:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've recreated it as a redirect which seems sensible. However I concur with Mike's views. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Re: Deletion of Image (Micro_CMYK.gif)

To Whom It May Concern,

I'm a web content administrator for the Microcredit Summit Campaign and have permission to upload the image that was deleted. Please undelete.

Thanks,

Jeffrey Matu

Ω

For us to be able to host this image you will need to get permission from the copyright holder sent to the Foundation via OTRS system. This will provide you with a number to place on the image page which will confirm correct licensing. The image will also need to fall within our scope. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Going to be restored if the permission arrives... →Na ·gy 18:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Santal Dogs

I just recieved a link to a brand new wiki page and it says its deleted?? why??

Can you provide specific details please? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to do. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:SOHO instruments pnggray 300.png

Please undelete Image:SOHO instruments pnggray 300.png

It was deleted with the comment "no license". However, it is a NASA image, apparantly in the public domain.

The details are still in this google cache and this archive. The original can be seen in this archive of http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/gallery/SC/soho.pdf.

Why was this tagged and deleted in this way? Was there a deletion discussion? If so could a link to the discussion be made in future, as I, like other Commons users I imagine, do not visit Commons that often. The image page description has the public domain template on it. The original image from NASA did not note any copyright. Furthermore, it appears the image was deleted without regard to links to the image. See Commons:STOP!!!! DO NOT DELETE THIS IMAGE TILL YOU REPLACE IT IN THE WIKIMEDIA LOGO MOSAIC. Sorry if this sounds like a rant, but I really feel a little more care and reporting is in order before such long-lived images are deleted with such haste. -Wikibob (talk) 18:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SOHO is not just NASA: it is a collaboration between NSAS and the ESA. The copyright page suggests that only non-commercial use is allowed without express permission. There may have been a lack of care in the original tagging, and if so I suggest choosing another image for the logo mosaic. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found the original image in this NASA gallery of images, and yes all but that one was marked with ESA in some form. The original NASA gallery did not have a blanket copyright notice at that time. It is possible they forgot that one, I guess back in 2005 I assumed it was a NASA-made diagram of the spacecraft. Anyway, I have emailed the SOHO webmaster this query and will wait for the reply. -Wikibob (talk) 00:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Let's hope for a positive reply. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 00:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime I've replaced the image in the mosaic with another one, feel free to revert when and if this is undeleted. -Nard the Bard 01:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

update This is the SOHO webmaster reply (you need to click the show link). The reply seems ambiguous, it first seems to allow a kind-of CC-BY-SA but ends with the status quo (which I guess is like CC-NC). I see other users, such as User:Arnomane in 2004 and 2005, have tried in vain to change ESA's policy here ([2], [3], [4], [5]) so I do not wish to waste more effort in this. Unless ESA has changed its policy since 2005 it appears the SOHO images are also hobbled in the same way. I therefore retract my undeletion request. -Wikibob (talk) 09:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SOHO denies. --O (谈 • висчвын) 00:20, 10 December 2008 (GMT)

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

Jog Falls

There was a gallery on wikipedia .. kinda of unnecessary. As per rules, had to be moved to the wikimedia commons. So I created the Jog Falls Page. It will contain pictures from the different seasons of the falls. It is of importance as it is the highest water fall in India.

I would have to agree... why would the gallery be out of scope (which was the deletion reason)? The en:Jog Falls article has existed since 2005, and there are two images in the (uncreated) Category:Jog Falls. Deleting an empty gallery I could see, but not because it is out of scope, unless maybe if a lot of textual article content was copied over too. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done by Carl Lindberg. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Lecture_at_Output.jpg

I'm having a hard time with my patience to get this solved. Please read my answer at the deletion area. I'm Dutch and I don't understand all the rules you request from me. Select and suggest one, I'll agree on that one, I really don't care about all the rules you ask from me I just want a pic in which is my own property, how difficult can this be to solve? This is the 3rd time it's deleted for incorrect reasons, so I'm getting quiet frustrated about it, as you perhaps may understand. Can you also restore the pics on the other language wikipedia/Yuri Landman, because I'm not allowed because of COI issues. You can verify me by visiting www.hypercustom.com and send me a personal mail I will reply. Thank you very much in advance, best wishes, --Yuri Landman 04:58, 13 November 2008

That does look like a confused deletion request... mostly on language difficulties. It probably would have been better to find a Dutch speaker first before deletion; we had a responsive author who seemed willing to license it provided the technicalities could be explained. Anyways, it looks as though OTRS permission was sent, but without a specific license mentioned. Permission must be granted for all users, not just Wikipedia, just to be clear. So... which license do you choose? {{GFDL/nl}}, {{Cc-by-sa-3.0-nl}}, {{Cc-by-3.0-nl}}, {{PD-author/nl}}, or one of the others listed on Commons:Copyright tags? Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wat ik zojuist begrijp is, De foto's zijn verwijderd vanwege de gitaren op de achtergrond. Daarna heb jij een OTRS ticket verstuurd. Maar daarbij heb je geen licentie aangegeven en daardoor kan het verzoek niet worden afgerond.

Wat nu geregeld is. (Door Multichil) Het otrs ticket is doorgestuurd naar de Nederlandse afdeling. Dus ik neem aan dat er binnenkort contact met je word opgenomen in het nederlands over de ticket. Als dat is afgerond zal de afbeelding kunnen worden terug geplaatst. Als je nog vragen hebt verder kan je terecht bij Multichil Siebrand en of mijn. Deze kunnen je allemaal in het Nederlands te woord staan en zijn ook allemaal admin. Afgesproken? Sterkebaktalk 18:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:GYALWA KARMAPA-HST-80x80-IV 08.jpg

This image have been deleted, whereas I was in the process of consulting the procedure, as I have indicated here. Can you please undelete ? I have now sent the copyright form to "permissions-commons wikimedia.org" e-mail address concerning this file. Thanks in advance.--Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 18:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted and tagged with {{OTRS pending}}. Multichill (talk) 20:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Mendel.png

Image:Mendel.png was deleted on 14 November 2008 by User:Mardetanha since no source data was listed. However, since Gregor Mendel died in 1884, this photograph is in the public domain. I don't know where the original uploader got this from, but it is part of the National Library of Medicine history exhibit. TimVickers (talk) 17:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done Dear TimVickers i have restored the image but please be advise even very old images need to have source because we have to be sure about date of Publication.so i will check the image within 2 next days.if you didn't provide the source i will delete it again.thanks for consideration.--Mardetanha ^talk 20:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Come on now. Mendel died 1884. It is rather ludicrous to delete such photos because of bureaucratic requirements for source. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image can be found in many places on the web. The dates on the various sites differ, but almost all place its creation/publishing in the 1860s. Getty Images says "circa 1865". --Kam Solusar (talk) 11:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page says 1868 (link), which would make the image 140 years old. TimVickers (talk) 02:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Close. --O (谈 • висчвын) 00:34, 10 December 2008 (GMT)

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

Carolyn vs. Keith Henson

Cirt has deleted images one of which [6]was used in the Keith Henson article on Wikipedia. This deletion was inappropriate because Cirt was involved at the Keith Henson article. The image was in use until Cirt edit-warred to remove it. The image is educational: someone who wants to learn biographical information about Keith Henson would benefit from it. The only objection from Jehochman was that he thought it was undue, but undue does not apply on Commons. --Qwerty612 (talk) 12:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Oppose undeletion. Qwerty612 is a single-purpose attack account solely being used in attempts to denigrate Keith Henson. The images have zero place on en.wiki due to their sole intended use of attacking the subject of an article which is a biography of a living person. Please also see en.wiki: w:Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Cirt.2C_Jehochman.2C_and_Qwerty612. Cirt (talk) 16:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't write anything that was denigratory or attacking. Everything I wrote was neutral. --Qwerty612 (talk) 18:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All contributions on both commons and en.wiki by this SPA to date have been to introduce negative information about a living person, none of which is notable and has not been discussed in secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 22:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose undeletion. There is no reason to believe these documents are within project scope, and further, they appear to be used, as Cirt says, to denigrate a living person. The account requesting this appears to be involved in an English Wikipedia Arbitration case. I see no need to import that controversy here and suggest that all the referenced images stay deleted. Lar: t/c 03:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not done --O (谈 • висчвын) 00:36, 10 December 2008 (GMT)

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

Confidential and Hush-Hush: magazine covers from the 1950’s

I want to raise a question concerning some magazine covers from the 1950’s. It’s about Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Conf54-03_march-54.jpg.

According to Commons:Licensing#United_States

Anything published before January 1, 1964 and not renewed is in the public domain."

After a search at http://www.scils.rutgers.edu/~lesk/copyrenew.html I have found no renewal for Confidential or Hush-Hush. The magazine covers I uploaded were all produced before 1964. Would the magazine covers from Confidential from the 50’s be correctly uploaded if {{Template:PD-US-not_renewed}} is attached to it?

Please compare my magazine covers with the scanned pages at Category:Good Housekeeping What is the difference between my scanned pages and these scanned pages? Neither has renewed copyright, both are produced between 1923 and 1964 and aren’t both therefore under public domain in the US?

If you want to know the purpose of uploading these old magazine covers (Confidential and Hush-Hush), it's for an article I'm about to write for the Swedish Wikipedia on Confidential magazine and other scandal rags. It's also for changing some mistakes in the English version of the article on [[[:en:L.A._Confidential]] , where it’s assumed that Hush-Hush magazine is purely fictional, which is not correct. They are also for illustrating the article on en:Robert Harrison (publisher), which I thought I should write as I’ve already covered the subject in other media.

If you want to see the covers I’m talking about, kindly see my blog, where I’ve written an essay on the subject (the text is in Swedish): http://nekulturny.blogspot.com/2008/03/skvallerjournalistiken-jubilerar.html

No matter what conclusion you reach – thanks for the good work you’re doing and excuse me if I clutter this page with something that might be obvious to those with more copyright knowledge than me. (This was my first upload at Commons, and I was a bit distressed that I was immediately banned :-)

Cheers/ Fredriksson67 (talk) 01:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First let me say I'm sorry to see you were blocked over this, it looks like at least possibly a misunderstanding since you may have missed warnings and the admins thought you were deliberately disregarding them. Cecil and ABF probably need to review COM:MELLOW again. :) Second, as to the covers themselves, where you went in the weeds was using PD-self... that was so obviously incorrect that it set off alarm bells, no doubt. We get a lot of blatant copyright violating material uploaded with claims like "I did this myself" and the like. Third, based on your analysis, I agree... if these copyrights were not renewed, and it can be fairly easily shown that they were not (if the place you searched is fairly authoritative for re-registrations...? I think it is but am not an expert) then yes, these all should be undeleted and tagged with {{PD-US-not renewed}} as you suggest. I'm not sure the analogy you draw with the Good Housekeeping pages and covers is 100% correct, as those were never registered rather than not renewed, I don't think... but it's close, and I agree in spirit with your reasoning. I'd like to see more discussion before I just undeleted, but that's my thinking. Lar: t/c 04:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: I would never block a new user indef unless there is some really serious reason for it. Unfortunately ABF was faster, otherwise it would have been three days, which help a lot when users totally ignores warnings, uses invalid licences and uploads without stopping no matter how many messages and even though there are problems. But if you think that I'm not mellow enough than I can do the same thing as Patrícia and Rocket. As long as "mellow" means that I have to accept sueable insults and just return a 'please be civil', I'll prefer to keep my backbone and not be mellow. So tell me either to leave this project or stop mentioning that word in connection with me. -- Cecil (talk) 00:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would not be not opposed to a 3 day block given the circumstances at the time. I agree, if there was no communication, and no other way to start it, what else can be done? Cecil, I'd rather not see you do anything to discontinue the good work you do, which is considerable. And yet I can still say that everyone needs a dose of mellow from time to time. If that gives offense I am sorry. No offense is intended. My talk is open, as always. Lar: t/c 12:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest moving this discussion to user talks, no real need to discuss here.Mitch32^{(Want help? See here!)} 00:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope Cecil’s references to “ sueable insults” don’t imply me and the messages I sent to Cecil and ABF after the incident. I believe they were very civil indeed. To give you an example of the tone:

”I'm totally new to this, so I didn't see the warnings you gave me. I didn't scroll down to see the message, only saw the top and thought it was some general help page. Sorry! Have seen it now, but still don't understand.” […] Even if I'm permanently blocked because of some big infringement on some rule, please tell me what that is as I don't understand your message about "non PD-self". […] I have read and accepted the copyright policies, but am not yet really sure if I've fully understood them :-)”

In a later message named “I don't understand... please answer me” I wrote:

“If I am completely delusional here, please enlighten me. And please unblock me – this mistake might have happened out of ignorance but I assure you it wasn’t out of malice. […] Cheers/Chris”

I don’t think Cecil or ABF blocked me out of malice, they were trying to keep this place clean, and I respect that. It was my ignorance that got me into this mess, as I honestly didn’t see the warnings but mistook them for general help pages because I didn’t scroll down the page to the messages.

I hope the fact that I haven’t continued uploading anything, but rather started a civil discussion on the matter instead, clearly indicates that I’m not only serious, but also willing to learn about the copyright issues to avoid future mistakes, as I really would like to contribute to this and other wiki-projects. And by the way, if you understand Swedish, you can now see my article on Confidential.

The only thing it lacks now is an illustration :-) Fredriksson67 (talk) 03:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The link you mention is only for book renewals I think, not for periodicals or other classes, which were published in separate volumes (which unfortunately not all of which are online). However... the periodical renewals were put online, and the University of Pennsylvania has a nice summary page here (and the full records are here). According to that, Confidential and Hush-Hush never had any issues renewed. The one complication is that it was possible (though rare) for photographs to be registered (and therefore renewed) separately, and those (visual arts) renewal records are not online, though maybe that would be "contributions to periodicals", which are. I don't know if that is enough to keep them deleted though... presumably they were used on the covers with permission. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hypothetical renewals of copyrights of individual photographs should not matter. Undelete. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the covers show 4 to 5 pics, among them a famous Marilyn photo in the last row. Do you dare to say: They are all fine and free today? With this pic (=the pic beneath "Sanningens Los Angeles värre än filmens") they made an exclusive story about Ava Gardner. So it was probably an expensive pic and therefore copyrighted as long as possible. I think, this case is too hairy for commons without an investigation bureau. Mutter Erde (talk) 13:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think that 28 years later it would have been worth the trouble to renew copyright of a 1950's photo of Ava Gardner where it looks as if she is touching a guy with her toes? But anyway, this is not about that photo, it is about the magazine cover. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many of these pics show the celebrities not beautiful as common. So they are something special. Some pics might be used even 30/40/50 years later. For example for a biography or Ava Gardner's memories as an old woman. If I were the author/paparazzi of some of such pics (for example of a young Paris Hilton), I would copyright them for more 28 years according to the then American law. Mutter Erde (talk) 13:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I take things back somewhat. Anything published 1951 or later would have been renewed in 1978 or later, which means the records are online at the U.S. Copyright Office and are therefore searchable. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip, Carl. I’ve now searched the aforementioned database at U.S. Copyright Office. The search words I used were “Hush-Hush magazine” and “Hush-Hush” which turned up a lot of lullabies but no references to the magazine. The search for “Confidential magazine” warranted no hits and “Confidential” got me many songs and movie references but nothing in reference to the magazine. (There are of course articles published ABOUT Confidential magazine, but these are excluded, as they have nothing to do with the actual copyright issue concerning the magazine per se.) I also searched Confidential’s publisher Robert Harrison, its research director Marjorie Meade, and its editor Howard Rushmore, which turned up zilch and bubkes, to use the lingo of Confidential – i.e. nothing. Fredriksson67 (talk) 19:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Bernstein’s biography “Mr. Confidential” about Confidential magazine’s publisher Robert Harrison included “more than 75 pages of photos and reproductions of the magazine's stories and covers” (reference) This is of course in no way proof of anything, but may be an indication that the copyright is public domain today? (I imagine buying that much copyrighted material would be rather expensive and that if the material would still be under copyright Bernstein would include much less and settle for describing it instead.) / Fredriksson67 (talk) 20:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have now written the article on Robert Harrison (publisher), which also would be much enhanced by a picture of an actual Confidential-cover. I don't know if any of you reading this have the authority to make a decision on this matter, put it to a vote or just restore my gallery? Or do you think I just should restore it myself, tag it with {{Template:PD-US-not_renewed}} and refer to this discussion? // Fredriksson67 (talk) 00:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted Copyright not renewed according to Fredriksson67's research. Yann (talk) 11:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These covers are composed works made of various images (photographs of drawings) for which we have absolutely no information. Undeleting these covers is irresponsible. Rama (talk) 13:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Yann, for restoring the pics. And thanks everybody else who participated in the discussion, antagonists and protagonists alike, because this has been a great learning experience for me. I'm impressed by the amount of knowledge you have on this subject and the manner in which you are running Commons. You are truly doing a great job. Cheers//Chris Fredriksson67 (talk) 17:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Jlilly3.jpg Deleted due to use of Mozilla logo, but Mozilla logo is free to use

This file contains a logo for the Mozilla product Firefox and is protected by copyright and/or trademark by the Mozilla Foundation and/or its subsidiary Mozilla Corporation. According to the Mozilla trademark policy, the logo is free to use as long as:

It is non-confusing and non-disparaging
It is not used commercially
It is not modified
It is not high resolution

Furthermore, the Mozilla Trademark Policy FAQ reads, "Can I put Firefox or Thunderbird banners on my website? Can I link to you?" Answer: "Thanks for your support :-) Of course you may. We have button programs for exactly this". Also, Mozilla's Firefox Buttons page reads "Put one or more of these buttons on your website to help us spread the word about Firefox. We appreciate it!" Despite this, the restrictions on this logo make it non-free by Wikimedia's Definition of Free Cultural Works, and therefore it may only be displayed in the main namespace in accordance with Wikipedia:Non-free content.([7]) FlyingToaster (talk) 03:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flying Toaster, please note, that you are on Commons here. We do not accept non-free media, please upload the image to Wikipedia if you want to use it there. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 08:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the U.S. at least, logos can be covered by both trademark and copyright. We actually do allow otherwise-free trademarked material here, presuming that our use does not violate trademark, but we are unbending about the copyright. The Mozilla project explicitly states (in their FAQ that their primary logos are fully copyright protected. I guess they assume that any allowed uses under their trademark license would be also covered under "fair use" for copyright purposes. At any rate, that does mean that we can't allow those images here. Unless you can argue de minimis, the image can't be undeleted. Is the original here? If so... hm, that is borderline. Obviously the photo was intending to include the logo, but it is out-of-focus and not the primary point. It is arguable de minimis as-is, but it would also probably be safer to crop the image to just include the portion with John Lilly himself. That would then then just part of the logo instead of all of it, and would be safely de minimis as it would be purely incidental inclusion. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My reply is here. --AVRS (talk) 17:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The logo is de minimis and not the subject of the photo. The image should be restored. Evrik (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done (DM) --O (谈 • висчвын) 01:12, 10 December 2008 (GMT)

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

Image:Confederate Monument in Owensboro 1.jpg

Please undelete this and this Image:Confederate Monument in Owensboro 2.jpg. The commonshelper refuses the re-upload. And please don't forget to add the author. It was George Julian Zolnay. Thanks Mutter Erde (talk) 12:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They might be renamed by the the uploader? See en:Image:Confederate Monument in Owensboro 1.JPG and en:Image:Confederate Monument in Owensboro 2.JPG Mutter Erde (talk) 12:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The images have never been transfered to Commons so far, the {{NoCommons}} was added at the en.wp images (probably) precautionary. Commonshelper refuses the direct upload because the tool does not identifie {{Attribution}} as a license. (de: Die Bilder wurden noch nicht nach Commons transferiert, das NoCommons wurde in der englischen Wikipedia wahrscheinlich vorsorglich angebracht. Commonshelper erkennt das Attribution nicht als Lizenz und verweigert daher den direkten Upload.) --Martin H. (talk) 12:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does it work when I delete this template for some minutes (and restore it after the upload?). It's a bit risky for me, because en:User:MutterErde is banned from en by the chief himself :-) Mutter Erde (talk) 13:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not required, Commonshelper still provides you the correct source text, so if the image does not violate any copyright requirements (FOP) you can create the source text with Commonshelper and upload the image manually, the license {{Attribution}} will be interpreted correctly, only the automatic upload is not working by some reason. (kurz: bitte Quelltext mit Commonshelper erstellen und das Bild dann manuell hochladen, die Lizenz wird korrekt übertragen.). --Martin H. (talk) 13:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WOW, it works :-). Thank you very much. Regards Mutter Erde (talk) 13:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please restore Commons gallery for "Belcourt (quartier d'Alger)"

Hi,

This page about a neighborhood of Algiers (Algeria) used to contain pictures by me of that neighborhood. It was deleted on September 1st, but I can't think of any reason why it should be deleted. Furthermore, the page is still referenced from http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belouizdad , and the pictures that used to be linked from there appear to be still available on Wikimedia Commons.

Can you please restore it?

Thanks in advance,

Ludovic 04:30, 20 October 2008

I fixed the link in fr:Belouizdad so that it points to the page Belcourt (quartier d'Alger). It would be good if you could categorize those images to a category:Belcourt (quartier d'Alger). You can just ignore warnings that the category had been deleted, and make that category yourself. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, for updating the link. However, the Commons page for "Belcourt (quartier d'Alger)" is *not* in the state where it used to be: pictures and accompanying comments were removed from there. Notably, the following pictures are no longer referenced from there although they used to: Image:Rue-Belouizdad-1.jpg , Image:Belouizdad-vue-generale-1.jpg , Image:Jardin-d-essai-1.jpg. Is it possible to simply revert whatever changes were done to this Commons page and get it back in its original form? —Preceding unsigned comment added by GnuCivodul (talk • contribs) 05:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Close. --O (谈 • висчвын) 03:41, 11 December 2008 (GMT)

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

Guadalupe Salcedo and Dario Silva Silva's portraits

I'll upload the following images at Commons:

Image:Guadalupe_Salcedo.jpg, Image:Ninos_asesinados.jpg, Image:Entrega_guerrilla_liberal.JPG, and Image:Guadalupesalcedo_y_Dumaraljure.jpg, Image:Dariosilva.jpg, and Image:Rev Dario Silva Silva.jpg

But all were deleted. So that my explanations why be undeleted that images:

According to Colombia's legislation every portraits are public domain because "the publication of portraits is free when related scientific, didactic or cultural purposes in general, or with facts or events of public interest or that have been perfomed in public" (quoted from 36th article from Law 23 of 1982 "Copyright regulations and intelectual property").

This article is apply about the use of Image:Guadalupe_Salcedo.jpg,Image:Dariosilva.jpg, and Image:Rev Dario Silva Silva.jpg because are portraits from public persons, and the use is for educative purposes at Wikipedia. On the other hand the follow files Image:Ninos_asesinados.jpg, Image:Entrega_guerrilla_liberal.JPG, and Image:Guadalupesalcedo_y_Dumaraljure.jpg are photos about public events perfomed in public: this photography was shoted during the violence age of the 50 decade in Colombia, then have a documental purpose that asimilated to educative purpose. About the Image:Dariosilva.jpg, and Image:Rev Dario Silva Silva.jpg was shoted at public meeting of House on the Rock Church in Colombia.

Anyway the source of this files: Image:Guadalupe_Salcedo.jpg, Image:Guadalupesalcedo_y_Dumaraljure.jpg and image:Entrega_guerrilla_liberal.JPG is the Biblioteca Luis Angel Arango's web site. The Luis Angel Arango Librery is the most important public library from Colombia, so documents, books, pictures, images and all material posted in this site, is public domain.

Thanx for your time. I wait for any question. --Altayre (talk) 00:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I've already pointed out, this article 36 is only a restriction of the personality rights of the persons shown on these photographs. It is valid only in conjunction with article 87, which says "Every person has the right to forbid, subject to the limits established in article 36, that a bust or portrait of him or her be shown to the public or be offered for sale without his express consent..." Article 36 does not make portraits copyright-free! The photographers of these portraits do own the usual copyrights on these portraits. Therefore, these images should not be restored. Lupo 21:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have rigth, Lupo, the article 36 does not make portraidts copyright-free, but the special limitations contents in this article permited the fair use ONLY if this used is for culture, educative, and scientific purpose. Because it I'm requested again that this images should be undeleted! --Altayre (talk) 19:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, but however Commons requires more than which are only OK for Wikipedia to use -- we require images where the copyright allows anyone to use them, in most any (including commercial) contexts. This is a philosophic position, not just legal -- Wikipedia articles are authored under a such a copyright license, which allows re-use under many circumstances. I think es:Contenido libre is the page which describes the idea. Therefore... Commons does not allow images with "educational-use-only" restrictions. If such images are unavoidably necessary to illustrate Wikipedia articles, they are typically uploaded to only that Wikipedia under a "fair use" type of exception. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not done --O (谈 • висчвын) 03:42, 11 December 2008 (GMT)

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

Image:Hrvatski-planinar-logo.jpg

The logo of the journal "Hrvatski planinar" (Croatian Mountaineer) (Hrvatski-planinar-logo.jpg) was deleted. Why? I am the editor of the journal, and I created the logo few years ago. The owner of the magazine and the editorial are completely agreed of publishing the logo on the web. The file I uploaded is used in Croatia as logo for this journal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alan Caplar (talk • contribs) 16:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In most cases people copy logos like this from the web without getting permission -- in these cases we usually require an email be sent to OTRS to make sure there is no confusion that the proper copyright owners are in fact making it available under a free copyright license (trademark rights are fully retained though). See Commons:Email templates. If you do that, the logo should be restored. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not done --O (谈 • висчвын) 03:43, 11 December 2008 (GMT)

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

Image:Ciroc n roll.jpg

Good Afternoon.

I submitted a personal photo to add to my Wikipedia Article a few months back. I did what was required by adding dates photograph was taken etc. My photograph is no longer accessible. Please advise on how to get it back on my article.

Thanks,

EQuinox Professionals Photo: Ciroc-n-Roll

(138.162.0.41)

The image has been uploaded using the account User:Equinoxpro, and your English Wikipedia accounts are apparently en:User:Equinoxpro and en:User:EQuinoxprofessionals.

Note that “Taken from Wikipedia.com” is not sufficient as a copyright notice. See en:Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content and Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia for details.

Also, your user page should only be used for the purposes of work on the Wikimedia projects, and not as your homepage. If the image is still useful for an article (or for your user page, if there is a good reason for it), you can use the image, but you have to release it under a free license. Please see Commons:Project scope and Commons:Licensing.

Good luck with your contributions. Thanks.

--AVRS (talk) 21:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not done --O (谈 • висчвын) 04:03, 11 December 2008 (GMT)

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

Maps by Sven Rosborn

Please undelete

File:Map of Caroli City Malmo.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
File:St Gertrud area in Malmo Sweden 9.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Both are maps made by sv:User:Sven Rosborn, a professional archaeologist and a valued contributor to Swedish wikipedia. I have no doubt that his responses on User talk:Sven Rosborn, that he made these maps himself and that he had the right to release the maps, are true. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The two images are in different situations first is created by the uploader and was only missing a license tag, second comes from a defferent source and a permission needs to be registered with OTRS. Both things will hopefully be resolved at User_talk:Sven_Rosborn#Undeletion. /Lokal _Profil 01:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first one was replaced by Image:Caroli City Malmo.jpg. I am withdrawing the undeletion request. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second image had verbal permission only. Closing. /Lokal _Profil 00:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not done but resolved. Lokal _Profil 00:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image of dead American soldier

Image:Three Dead Navy SEALs in Operation Redwing.PNG was deleted by User:Maxim without any attempt at discussion or review of the image, simply stating it was "Outside of the project scope" - even though it's used on the Wikipedia articles on w:Operation Red Wing, as well as the three men depicted - demonstrating their deaths. (alongside images of their military service while alive and well).

Is there any reason the image of a dead US soldier in Afghanistan would be less historically notable than the many images of wardead seen at w:Holocaust, or the images of w:John F. Kennedy, w:Charles Whitman and w:Abu Musab al-Zarqawi?

User:Maxim offered the simple explanation that "there are enough images of corpses on Commons", as though every image of a dead Albanian, Nazi or murder victim should just be replaced with corpse.jpg which seems ridiculous. Do we have "enough" images of motorcars? flowers? scientists?

Can the image please be restore, and User:Maxim can start a proper deletion through proper channels if he honestly believes it lies outside our project scope. Sherurcij (talk) 23:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted - Actually, Sherurcij was edit warring to keep this image in various articles on en.WP, where the image was felt not to add anything to the articles and was inflammatory. One does not need to see the dead body of a person when the article clearly indicates that the person is dead and how they came to be dead. The image is from As-Sahab Foundation for Islamic Media Publication, the media production house of Al-Qaeda, and is inherently propagandistic. The origin of the images is not clear, and thus the right of As-Sahab to license it as Public Domain is also not clear. Risker (talk) 02:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (Note that Risker is the one who removed the image from the article on en.WP), how exactly is it "inherently propagandistic" to see a body? Is Image:Zarqawi dead us govt photo.jpg any different? How? Sherurcij (talk) 04:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note that I removed it once, and you returned it, while you edit-warred to keep it in the three articles about the deceased soldiers. There are significant differences in the two images; the Zarqawi one is taken in a controlled situation, away from the scene of the death, and shows only his face for identification purposes. The images of the soldiers are taken at the scene of their death and show their full bodies. The quality of the two images is also not comparable; the Zarqawi image is an actual high quality photograph, where the Operation Red Wing one is a series of screen shots, captioned with the names of the deceased. The Zarqawi image appears to have been found to be encyclopedic by 11 projects, mostly for the article related to the subject of the image. The subject of the w:Operation Red Wing article has not been deemed significant enough for creation in or translation to other projects, and only one of the articles about the soldiers has been created in three other projects. Therefore, there is also a notable difference in the significance of the two images. Please note that I did not propose to have other images and video excerpts from the same source removed if they did not involve the bodies of the soldiers; the article involved still has three other images/videos from the same source at this time, although I may propose on en.WP that the one with the religious songs in the audio be removed from the article. The video from which the images are taken shows desecration of the bodies, with religious songs playing in the audio; that is inherently propagandistic. I note you have not addressed the problem of the identification of the original source of the video and the lack of confirmation that As-Sahab has the right to license it. Risker (talk) 05:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're saying that it's simultaneously "not sure it was made by as-Sahab" and "since it was made by as-Sahab, it's inherently not allowed" -- you seem to contradict yourself. However, the file is dual-licensed since not only was it released into the Public Domain by the copyright holder, but neither Afghanistan nor the United States recognise it as being copyrightable material based on the lack of Copyright legislation in Afghanistan. I don't see any desacration of bodies in the entire video, muchless this image. They were shot, that is how dead people look - see w:Holocaust for much more desacrated bodies. Sherurcij (talk) 05:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - The original video, which we do not see, is probably not copyrightable material. The video from which these images are taken is clearly and obviously modified from the original (edited, overdubbed), and there is no indication of where that modification was made, so we cannot assume that it was done in Afghanistan. We also do not know who made the modifications and whether or not they released their rights to as-Sahab. Please also do not attribute statements to me that I did not make. Risker (talk) 05:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The propagandist matter should not be considered, neither the fact it is dead US soldiers. The discussion should focus on the source matter and copyrights, please.--Lilyu (talk) 05:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restored "Outside of project scope" is not a valid reason for deleting the image. Please fill a deletion request. Yann (talk) 08:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, "Outside of project scope" IS a valid reason. I think we need a more structured discussion, so agree with Yann, let's get a deletion request going. Lar: t/c 12:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please help

Hello. This file I uploaded was deleted: image:Nancy hanks, lincoln boyhood memorial.jpg. I am not sure why, but i expect I may have put an invalid copyright tag on it. Could someone please tell me why it was removed? The image is public domain. It is a photo I took of an original portrait that is owned and displayed by the National Park Service, a federal agency. That makes it public domain by my understanding. Cool10191 (talk) 22:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cant' find this image, neither in the deletion logs. Could you provide a valid link to it's former location? Thanks, →Na ·gy 18:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You added the image to the article on November 2 2008, but this image never existed at commons or at the english wikipedia. Also you did not upload an image with a similar name here or there at this time. So i dont think we can help you here, this debate is now closed. --Martin H. (talk) 04:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Images/page

I am very sorry for not understanding all the editing system because of less knowledge of editing process in Wiki media or Wikipedia, if there is some mistake please forgive me and please bring it on the right page and right place, I will be very grateful to you Sir,

With Regards,

Hayatullah Durrani 11:20, 2 December 2008

Similar request from same user lower down so closing this one. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Undeletion of file Displayport-Cable.jpg

I have uploaded the file image:Displayport-cable.jpg. This file was deleted due to problems with the license. The license is now ok (see File talk:Displayport-cable.jpg).

Is it possible to undelete the image?

kind regards,

Erwin Cornelis 13:18, 12 December 2008

Could you check the number please? I can't find it under 2008111210024961. But it may be the system, as correct numbers have failed to show up before. Not sure why. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Yeah, sounds like a commons OTRS problem, but I finally got it :) →Na ·gy 08:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Kerjman

What is wrong with a steadily deleted article of Kerjman, an internationally recognised professional of non-Anglo background?

Wikipedia pages conclude much more info on only inherited their titles than on the recently living self-advancing commoners. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.68.60 (talk • contribs) 04:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. Please note your article has been deleted once here on Commons, but five times on Wikipedia. Wikimedia Commons is a free file repository for Wikimedia projects (including Wikipedia) and therefore has a different scope. You may try requesting the article's undeletion on Wikipedia itself. Regards, →Na ·gy 08:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

A little bird said... Should one pay/donate for placing info on these pages?

Image:Elias Canetti's Signature.jpg

This is a followup to Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#German_signatures. Those German signatures are now undeleted; AFBorchert left out the Canetti signature in his request because he's not familiar with Swiss law. However, the consensus in the discussion at Commons:Deletion_requests/More_signatures seems to be that it's highly unlikely that signatures are copyrightable in Switzerland, too (see contributions by Ikiwaner and Carl Lindberg there), therefore this request. Gestumblindi (talk) 18:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elias Canetti was born in Bulgaria (Rustchuk). Canetti settled and stayed in England until the 1970s, receiving British citizenship in 1952. For his last 20 years, he mostly lived in Zurich when he died in 1994. Please undelete Elias Canetti's signature because he never has been a Swiss citizen. --Darldarl (talk) 11:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has not been undeleted because signatures are not free under UK law. See the new COM:SIG page. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having read his first autobiography, Die gerettete Zunge, I know some part of his biography. But I guess that the nation of his citizenship is not the country we are looking for but the country where this signature was published first. As I do not have access to the deleted image description, I do not know anything about its source. Could anyone with admin privileges share this info with us? --AFBorchert (talk) 17:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.havelshouseofhistory.com/Autographs of Nobel Laureates in Literature BF-C.htm --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, MichaelMaggs, I guess we have a problem here as this web page apparently fails to state where this signature has been taken from. Even if it is very likely that this was published first by some Austrian, German, or Swiss publisher, we cannot prove it. --AFBorchert (talk) 19:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about signatures that were not published in printed form, but apparently scanned directly e.g. from a signed book like Image:Umberto-eco001.jpg? As an author's signature typically stays the same for a long time, should we rely on where an instance of the signature (but not necessarily the particular one) was published first? Gestumblindi (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gestumblindi, in case of unpublished works we have to consider the nationality of the creator, see Article 5 (4c) of the 1971 Paris Act of the Berne convention. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you consider every instance of an author's signature as a new work? I don't think so. If the signature more or less stays the same, it's always the same "work", if considered a work at all, I think; a work manually reproduced many times. Therefore, if signature A is published in country X, apply the copyright of country X to every further instance of this signature by this author? Gestumblindi (talk) 00:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gruss Sie, Andreas!

Wenn Sie Canettis Die gerettete Zunge gelesen haben, wissen Sie schon, dass seine Familie fur kurze Zeit (bis zum Tode des Vaters) nach Manchester ging und dann Canetti hauptsachlich in Wien lebte. Man konnte annehmen, dass die betreffende Signatur aus Canettis Wiener Zeit stammt. Naheres konnten Sie ubrigens von meinem Artukel "Elias Canetti - ein osterreichischer Schriftsteller? Verwandlungen zwischen Rustschuk und Wien" erfahren.

Ich freue mich uber die virtuelle Bekanntschaft mit Ihnen! --Darldarl (talk) 18:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seien Sie ebenso herzlich gegrüßt, Darldarl, ich habe auf meiner Diskussionsseite dazu geantwortet. --AFBorchert (talk) 19:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete and stop this ignorant UK-based Paranoia. We should establish for Maggs et alii an own project where they can do their terror regime --Historiograf (talk) 22:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I consider this comment to be uncivil & have pointed that out to the user. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May be worth noting that having warned me to not attempt to censor him, Historiograf has twice removed my comments to him. The definition of censorship is obviously variable to this user. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not done --O (谈 • висчвын) 23:00, 15 December 2008 (GMT)

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

Image:Ahmed Shah Durrani.png

I think this image was again deleted by mistake because it has no copyright violation. Notice that it has once been "undeleted" in December 2007:

File:Ahmed_Shah_Durrani.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

My brother created this work using Adobe Photoshop some years back and then uploaded it to Commons in 2006. He also has it in his Flickr photo collection. The picture is of 1700s King of Afghanistan and Afghanistan has no copyright law.--Executioner (talk) 19:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Evrik (talk) 16:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2008-01#Image:Ahmed_Shah_Durrani.png and Commons:Deletion requests/Paintings by Tapand, all of which have resulted in keeps (though mainly because of the lack of any copyright law in Afghanistan; it appears the artist is still alive). Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - going back to the beginning, it was User:Le Behnam who made a blunt claim that the uploader is not the owner or copyright holder of these images. I'm wondering where is the evidence to support that claim? Surely, anyone can make such claims and are we suppose to follow them here? That user has been constantly trying to delete the images [8] since 8 March 2007. The fact is that we know very little about who painted these paintings, one or more of the paintings don't even show the artist's signature. Whoever owns the paintings are the copyright holder in this case. If I claim that I own these images then my claim must be respected here, unless otherwise you can show evidence that I don't own them. Even if we skip this argument, the images are ok here under the following license : {{PD-Afghanistan}} --Executioner (talk) 02:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done; Afghanistan has no copyright law at present. --O (谈 • висчвын) 23:13, 15 December 2008 (GMT)

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

Nalts.jpg

I, Kevin Nalty, hereby swear that Jan has proof to use that photo of me that's uploaded online for anyone... and she can use it on any wiki site or anywhere else.... especially if it replaces my fat-ass head that was taken at 777. :)

REQUEST: tell me what other proof you require and how I can provide this.

Discussion about this topic can also be found here

jischinger 08:58, 29 November 2008

That image doesn't show that it existed. Otherwise, check out Commons:OTRS Evrik (talk) 18:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing else heard so closed. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to note the image is available under File:KevinNalts.jpg with a free license. --Kanonkas_(talk) 15:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I would like to request that the Supper at Aardman painting is undeleted.

File:Supper at Aardman.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

The image of the 'Supper at Aardman' painting (http://www.vincentbrown.co.uk/portrait/paintings/figure/supper.jpg) is not a copyright violation as I am the creator of the original painting and have full permission to use the image from both Aardman (who sat for the commissioned portrait) and The Holburne Museum of Art. This can be verified by contacting http://www.bath.ac.uk/holburne/contact .

Many Thanks --Vincent Brown 10:37, 29 November 2008

If you could send an email to OTRS (details, and example format, at Commons:Email templates) that should normally do the trick. This is done so there is 1) no confusion about what rights are being granted for highly-visible external works like this, and 2) so we can see that the email comes from an address associated with the work, and not someone simply claiming to be the artist (which I think happens periodically). Note that permission needs to be given for everyone, not just Wikipedia, on whichever image you choose to upload. The other question would be the possible derivative work of the Aardman character sculptures... but if you had his permission, that seems like it would be OK, unless the permission was restricted to only certain uses... Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing else heard so closed I guess. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Permission to use file

I gave written email permission for the use of my Flickr photo to be used on Wikipedia.

My Flickr Page is http://www.flickr.com/photos/zl2ucx/

Copy of email giving permission to David O'Malley ZL3DO to use http://www.flickr.com/photos/zl2ucx/91262664 is below

To: zl3do Subject: Re: http://www.flickr.com/photos/zl2ucx/91262664

Hi David,

Yes that would be Ok, as long as there is some suitable acknowledgment.

73 Steve

Regards Steve Davis - zl2ucx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevednz (talk • contribs) 05:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that "Attribution-NonCommercial Creative Commons" is still not acceptable on Commons I'm afraid. Media must be freely licensed. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 19:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not done --O (谈 • висчвын) 23:38, 15 December 2008 (GMT)

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

???? ???

This is a historic picture of the site before the earthquake of 1935,the site itself was destroyed in the quake and this is the only photographic evidence found on the net. -— Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.186.123.55 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Evrik (talk) 17:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um, could you please give us the link to the image? Maybe then we could help you out good sir.Mitch32^{(Want help? See here!)} 21:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not done --O (谈 • висчвын) 23:37, 15 December 2008 (GMT)

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

File:Sevn.jpg and File:In7haFUNklabb.jpg

GFDL release obtained in OTRS ticket #2008121010024481. Requesting undeletion. Stifle (talk) 00:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done please tag the images now. --Kanonkas_(talk) 00:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mardi Gras float

Please restore Image:NaginWetDreamBlancoCenterfold.jpg. It was deleted after less than a day of discussion. After that a discussion started at Commons talk:Licensing/Archive_16#Floats, but it is not going anywhere. No more floats are being proposed for deletion. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Blatant derivative work; no FOP in the US; not de minimus; deleted at least once before. There is nothing to discuss and OTHERSTUFF arguments ("no more floats are being proposed for deletion") are as unhelpful here as on other projects. Эlcobbola _talk 21:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is an absolutely clear case, for the reasons stated above. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Floats in a parade should be COM:DM and not subject to FOP. Evrik (talk) 17:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a picture of a float in a parade. It is a close-up (i.e. float only - no other vehicles, people, etc) in an indoor space. What part of COM:DM would apply to this image? Эlcobbola _talk 17:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe it should be undeleted so non-admins can view it. In any case, parade floats should be not be subject to the same standard as a sculpture. Evrik (talk) 18:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - United States copyright law defines what is eligible: "Copyright protection subsists ... in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression" (emphasis mine). What subjectively "should be" is not relevant; declarations need to be based on "what is". Эlcobbola _talk 19:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since you brought that up ... please tell me which of the category a float falls under? I don't think that an image of a float falls under any of the categories. This is just another case of Commons copyright paranoiaEvrik (talk) 21:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not done --O (谈 • висчвын) 01:05, 16 December 2008 (GMT)

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

nude photo by Peter Klashorst

image:Teacher (nude photo by Peter Klashorst).jpg in the deletion log. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.64.79.169 (talk • contribs) 01:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is here: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Teacher (nude photo by Peter Klashorst).jpg Evrik (talk) 18:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC
Support, seems to be a case of an administrator "voting with the delete button", since the actual discussion failed to raise any policy questions. Sherurcij (talk) 00:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean apart from Durova and the closing comment "per Durova"? :) --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted Absent personality rights satisfying permissions, deletion is the correct decision if there is any doubt about the model's age or willingness to be photographed. This has been established in multiple Klashorst discussions already. Lar: t/c 02:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted Non-compliance with COM:PEOPLE is unambiguous. Эlcobbola _talk 03:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not done --O (谈 • висчвын) 01:03, 16 December 2008 (GMT)

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

Image:Louis Held-Adolf Brütt-Theodor Mommsen.jpg

Please undelete: User:Ruchhöft-Plau has found a source: Cornelius Steckner: Der Bildhauer Adolf Brütt. Autobiographie und Werkverzeichnis, 1989 ISBN 3-8042-0479-1. Mutter Erde (talk) 18:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Nard the bard. Evrik (talk) 20:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide more information: What does the source say about the author? Why do you think that publication in 1989 makes the image PD-old? Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 22:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have got a note, that I (as the transferrer of his de-pic) should add a source for this pic. Above is one source and Louis Held died in 1927, but that's not new. This is a de luxe-description (with ISBN - this is a big exception here :-)). The German original pic - untagged - can only dream of such a source, see de:Bild:Mommsen.jpg. Mutter Erde (talk) 21:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. Please add the source info to the image description. Thanks, AFBorchert (talk) 08:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Various picture & page

Dear Sir,

My pic and details are deleted from the list, I am very sorry for putting my pic and details on the wrong place it has happened because of less knowledge about computer work, kindly help me for restoring my pic and details on the rite page,

Many thanks for your kindness and assistance

Regards,

Hayatullah Khan Durrani

Please look carefully at out project scope. Your images etc seem extremely promotional - advertising yourself & websites. As such they are not appropriate for our project (including the two I have just deleted). --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hayat Durrani In Pakistan's Most Beautiful Cave, Kach Balochistan.jpg could be useful for en:Caving, but it should get a more descriptive and neutral description. --Kjetil_r 16:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Many thanks for restoring my editing system,

yours sincerely, Hayatullah kahn Durrani (Hayatdurrani (talk · contribs))

User does not seem to wish to understand Commons and has replaced their talk page with more self promotion. Now blocked for a period.--Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Nature_Materials_Nov_2008.jpg

File:Nature_Materials_Nov_2008.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) should be undeleted. I work for the copyright holder, specified in the image description, and got written permission to make this specific magazine cover freely available on wikimedia, to be used for example in the magazine's Wikipedia entry. Licensed as outlined, so there is nothing wrong with this cover being here! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jheber (talk • contribs) 10:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a permission from the owner, please send an email to our OTRS system at [email protected]. Evrik (talk) 19:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Permission received at OTRS:2281082, good to undelete. Stifle (talk) 10:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (Can the undeleting sysop please tag the image {{permissionOTRS|ticket=2281082}}?) Stifle (talk) 10:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restored per Stifle. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Israel flag crossed.png

Emm, the uploader of Image:Israel flag crossed.png is also the guy , who closed Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Israel flag crossed.png as kept. This is a very bad reason to keep another selfmade Anti Israel logo Mutter Erde (talk) 08:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reopened. This clearly is a serious misuse of admin-rights which require neutrality, something the admin as uploader and discussion-contributor clearly did not have. -- Cecil (talk) 01:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why was Image:No Israel.svg, which was deleted by a thoroughly legitimate and above-board process after an extended discussion, suddenly and apparently somewhat arbitrarily restored? Can anyone give me a really good reason why I shouldn't nominate it for deletion again? AnonMoos (talk) 02:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to tag this pic with "speedydelete", but I can't find the link to the guy who has restored it. Btw: OsamaK candidates for adminship now and he has good chances. Mutter Erde (talk) 23:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:No Israel.svg was restored by Mattbuck on 24 November 2008. His comment was: per UDEL && Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Israel flag crossed.png. --AFBorchert (talk) 00:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I tried to be as civil as I can be. {{speedydelete|Restoring of this file seems to be an error, see [[:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:No Israel.svg]]}} ~~~~ Mutter Erde (talk) 12:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was an undeletion request for this image which was decided less than 24 hours after the request with a reference to the other case. Hence, it wasn't restored accidently and {{Speedydelete}} does not apply. I suggest to reopen a DR for it or to join it to the other reopened case. (Personally, I would prefer to handle these cases individually.) --AFBorchert (talk) 13:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleting that file was not a mistake - please see the archives for the UNDEL request, which was (properly) successful. I filed that request, so I will not undelete it, but that should be done ASAP. — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 15:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's remarkable, how quick (= 7 hours !!!!!!!!!!!) some requests are executed. On the other hand, I'm waiting now for nearly one month of the undeletion of case 5 (Louis Held) above. Or see the pics of Josef Löwy, which I have reuploaded by myself - after waiting for 7 weeks for their undeletion.Welcome to the animal farm... emmm... commons. Mutter Erde (talk) 11:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is clear for what purpose these crossed flag/country images serve. Therefore I hereby protest against keeping these attack, hate propaganda images, because that is IMHO clearly against what in my eyes the projects are standing for. --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 23:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm totally d'accord with birdy. Anti-logos against ideas, political concepts, etc. may have a place, but not those discriminating against a people, such as File:Azflag.jpg, Image:Israel flag crossed.png, File:Anti Japan.svg, File:Anti Poland.png, File:Flag of the UK crossed.png and File:Us flag crossed.png. --Túrelio (talk) 10:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In concur with Spacebirdy and Túrelio. I do not see any use in self-made non-notable anti-logos that discriminate against people. This is out of COM:SCOPE. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the current Israel article on Arabian wikipedia. No pic, no commons link. Anyone here who wants to place Osama's or Julo's self created artwork there :-) Mutter Erde (talk) 20:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image was eventually kept. — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 23:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Arthur P. Kroll

This page is still being edited and photos have not been uploaded yet.

What is it that you are asking to be undeleted? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine the Arthur P. Kroll page, which was deleted twice in short order. It could just be recreated again, though it would be best to start with an image and add needed text later... Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would also consider adding en:Arthur P. Kroll at the same time. Evrik (talk) 18:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:YitzchakNissim.jpg, Image:TIMNA.JPG, and others

On November 8, some other of my images were deleted. Please restore them, so I can add the image copyright details. ‎דוד‎ 10:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which images exactly? Evrik (talk) 20:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing heard for two weeks so closed --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

please undelete "Fluid Mechanics Applications.jpg"

"Image:Fluid Mechanics Applications.jpg" is

created by me

uploaded by me

released under CC-BY-SA

deleted for "having no license"

please undelete it.

Saeed.Veradi (talk) 14:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Saeed.Veradi, please follow these instructions and talk about this with Kved first who deleted this image as no license tag was provided even after some time period expired. Just telling "public domain" does unfortunately not convince our bots that check for these tags. (It wasn't deleted under a CC-BY-SA license, BTW.) In addition, I wonder how this hand-sketched diagram is supposed to be within COM:SCOPE. Best wishes, --AFBorchert (talk) 14:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recreated, looks okay to me now. →Na ·gy 14:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

unknown image

Dear Sir, Kindly restore the pic with details,

many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.151.198 (talk • contribs) 10:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know what image you're talking about. Thanks, →Na ·gy 10:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closed. --O (谈 • висчвын) 00:41, 19 December 2008 (GMT)

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

Re: undelete

I uploaded Africa's roots in God article unto the site but it is deleted and I want it to be undeleted. (sednak) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sedy7 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sedy7 is referencing File:Africas Roots In God.pdf (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Sedy7, how this is within our scope? Articles belong on the Wikipedia projects. Эlcobbola _talk 15:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell what the pdf was ... Evrik (talk) 16:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a text article (and somewhat POV). It certainly has no place on Commons being outside our scope. I doubt it would be acceptable to Wikipedia in it's current form. Closed. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Python images

Python 2 and Python 7 were taken by myself, Aulyin, in the summer of 2008. The show the Python conveyer which takes coal from opencast to railway junction at New Cumnock, Ayrshire, SW Scotland -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.194.246 (talk • contribs)

Aulyin, I've restored File:Python 2.JPG and File:PYTHON 7.JPG. They were deleted because they did not contain any licensing information. Please add a license (e.g. {{PD-self}}, which you have used for your other uploads) or they will be deleted again in ca. 7 days. Эlcobbola _talk 13:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Husavik

Undelete, there are photos in that category now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wellington grey (talk • contribs) 13:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The category already exists as Category:Húsavík Evrik (talk) 20:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now a category redirect. --O (谈 • висчвын) 01:27, 19 December 2008 (GMT)

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

Image:Sikorsky S42.jpg

Regarding Image:Sikorsky S42.jpg, if you look at the discussion, it is pretty clear that the closing admin went aginst the consensus of the editors involved in the discussion. I see no signs that this image is not PD, and {{PD-US-no notice}} suits to this case. Evrik (talk) 15:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see COM:DR: "The debates are not votes, and the closing admin will apply copyright law and Commons policy to the best of his or her ability in determining whether the file should be deleted or kept. Any expressed consensus will be taken into account so far as possible, but consensus can never trump copyright law nor can it override Commons Policy." I am sure you will also be well aware of Commons:Project scope#Evidence which puts the burden on you to show that the image was indeed published in the United States between 1923 and 1977, without a copyright notice. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence? Try common sense. Clearly this image was {{PD-US-no notice}}. Evrik (talk) 20:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar in the LOC files, as this. Do they normally name the author when they know him? Or are they a bit sloppy with the photographers? Mutter Erde (talk) 20:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The original company is out of business and the copyrights not renewed.

A search of copyright renewal records for a number of years ([9]) reveals no evidence that Sikorsky or its successors renewed copyrights to the image or any collection of material that might encompass this image as would have been required to maintain copyright protection, if any.Evrik (talk) 20:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done --O (谈 • висчвын) 00:52, 21 December 2008 (GMT)

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

David "Chino" Rheems image

Request to undelete, The Image of David "Chino" Rheems is from lasvegasvegas.com, if you read the bottom of the page it reads "All material © LasVegasVegas.com under the creative commons license unless materials are under existing copyright and said materials are the property of of their respective copyright holders. LasVegasVegas.com expressly disclaims any warranty relating to any content of any pages or any links provided on these pages. Please read our terms and conditions and privacy policy for more information on this site." and this is the link of their terms [10] which states that This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License. please undelete the file File:Chino Rheems.jpg as the site permits the images from their photographer known as flipchip who allows his images from the site to be licences this way, please read what he has said about it here and here which reads "Thanks for all the positive comments over the years, that's what keeps me coming back. As always, photos on LasVegasVegas.com are covered under a Creative Commons Licensing Agreement requiring only a credit tag line if you use them. I'm a firm believer in paying it forward." Thank you. Sirex98 (talk) 12:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --AVRS (talk) 15:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Higgins.jpg

File:Higgins.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) was deleted with the motivation that no source was given. That was not true, it said "Krigsropet 1933", which is a publication of the Salvation Army. A month ago I contacted the deleting admin at User talk:Mardetanha#Image:Higgins.jpg, but there has been no reaction since then. Could another admin please undelete? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted. However, one might wonder if “Krigsropet 1933” as a source is sufficient for saying that the author has been dead for 70 years. If somebody feels that it isn't, please open a regular deletion request. --Kjetil_r 21:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:UNCLE_LOUIE.jpg

UNCLE_LOUIE.jpg is public domain and is merely a text. As the owner of Uncle Louie, LLC and the owner of the file Uncle_Louie.jpb I have granted its use as public domain and bereby request it be undeleted. Thank you for your consideration.

File:UNCLE_LOUIE.jpg is there (because you have re-uploaded it), but has been requested for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:UNCLE LOUIE.jpg. Please don't re-upload images that have been deleted; you can be blocked for that. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 23:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being discussed in regular deletion request. →Na ·gy 20:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Khalid Ibn Muhammad Al-Juhani-3.ogg

This is yet again, about yet another file deleted by User:Maxim with no clear reason. He states (Missing essential information: license/permission/source), although all three were given to the file, checked with administrators and deemed proper. Can I please have this file restored, as he seems to stalk through War on Terror files and delete any that aren't works of the US Government? It's released into the Public Domain by the copyright holder, and public domain in both the United States and Afghanistan even without as-Sahab's release as it is an Afghan work. Sherurcij (talk) 23:35, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The content of the image before {{Nld}} was applied was you blanking it, replacing it with {{delete|uploading better version}}. Maxim_(talk) 02:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn, didn't realise this was actually the nearly-identically named duplicate due to lack of deletion reason. Sherurcij (talk) 02:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Georgetown PowerPlant interior pano-resized.jpg

Just so you know, this file was a derivative work of File:Georgetown PowerPlant interior pano.jpg. I simply forgot to put the information that it was a derivative. Perhaps you should contact the uploader before going around and deleting files. CommonMaster (talk) 22:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will be happy to add the information if undeleted. CommonMaster (talk) 22:28, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:35, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The required information has been added. --rimshot^talk 19:18, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please undelete Maria K.jpg

Here I am representing the person depicted on image:Maria K.jpg and would appreciate very much to get any information on the painter and the whereabout of the original painting as well as of the fotografic reproduction. With this information we might find a way to add some reproduction of the painting to the commons.

Would it therefore be possible to undelete Maria K.jpg until final clarification can be achieved?

Thanks and regards,

--FMF 13:50, 7 December 2008

Ask the admin, User:bdk, who deleted the image. Evrik (talk) 17:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please contact COM:OTRS in order to confirm that you're the copyright holder of this image and specify a valid license. Thanks, →Na ·gy 14:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

What for an arbitrariness?,!

File:Siomkin_rusles.jpg - Cover of album, i'm uploaded & J.smith delete it.

I have the ALL rights to all images in Category:Ilya Siomkin, they have been transferred me personally by the author - Ilya Siomkin. He is the legendary Russian songwriter and my good friend. At wikipedia there is no way freeware that I have chosen it. About it it is written in the text. It is not my problem that you are not able to read in Russian. ) --AGGreSSor (talk) 21:45, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ilya Siomkin is a singer. He makes music, not album covers. If you have a permission from the music edition company, please send an email to our OTRS system at [email protected].--Lilyu (talk) 23:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think he couldn’t make a cover? --AVRS (talk) 20:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

English: Sending a permission is still needed, or else there is no way to confirm it.

Русский: Отослать разрешение всё равно нужно, иначе совершенно нечем его подтвердить.

--AVRS (talk) 20:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

World War I armistice

Please undelete File:Waffenstillstand gr.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log). It is not a painting, according to http://www.jamd.com/image/g/3279533 it is a colorized photograph. The Hulton archive at Getty images does not seem to know anything about authorship, so {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:42, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Maxim_(talk) 13:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Logo-citroen.jpg

This image was deleted as logo-copyrighted. I think there might be a confusion here :

The photographer have release its work in the public domain.
The creator of the logo is dead for more than 70 years => public domain in France and USA : The logo depicted in this image is a creation by André Citroën, a french citizen who died in 1935.
The logo is a trademark of Citroën company, owned by PSA Peugeot, protected by trademark laws, but no longer copyrighted => Commons host trademarked images : Commons:Non-copyright restrictions

Thus i belieave this image is a trademarked logo not copyrighted, and should be restored.

Please note : I'm not admin, so i cant check to verify if it's the image i do remember, but if it's the case, i had work a long time to try to explain as best as possible the status of this image, and at least i would like this image to be deletion reviewed and not speedy as it was.
If it's not an image i have edited, and the page is not saying what i explained above, than i might have make a mistake, i dunno --Lilyu (talk) 01:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have found that when i add some gurlz to my DR or requests, i can attract some admins to take a look at them ! It's my secret admin's decoy

--Lilyu (talk) 04:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked. :-) Evrik (talk) 16:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meant to comment on this a few days ago. I can't see the original image... but the logo itself is pretty much PD-ineligible in the U.S. (two chevrons, a common symbol). Not sure about France, but maybe it is PD-Old anyways. At the very least, it should not have been speedy deleted. Support undeletion. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think i need to add more gurlz, cause it's still not undelete. I dont understand why, the case seems clearly presented, and no opposition has been shown...--Lilyu (talk) 18:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The girls aren't working, Lilyu - 3 more days have passed, and we still don't have a comment from an administrator who can see the image. The brief deletion summary "(logo, copyrighted)" warrants a temporary restore for an IFD discussion, if not an outright keep.

In the meantime, a "cleaned up" version is still available - see thumbnail. --InfantGorilla (talk) 01:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nooooo dont show it ! they gonna delete it too !

Lilyu (talk) 01:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

somebody, please anybody, answer this man. Evrik (talk) 22:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Done. Sorry for the delay. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thx !

--Lilyu (talk) 10:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finally... →Na ·gy 21:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Jwibaki.png series

JeongAhn has sent permission data but it was deleted. --Ficell (talk) 10:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hum... can't find any permission in the COM:OTRS. Do you know the date/time it has been sent ? Thanks, →Na ·gy 16:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not long ago of when a comment posted. --Ficell (talk) 05:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still can't find any mail. Please consider re-sending. Thanks, →Na ·gy 21:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2008-12

Image:LeToyab.jpg and Image:LeToya.jpg

Image:DanceofLife.gif

undelete

Wikimedia Commons is not an amateur porn site

The City of Love

undeletion the capital.jpg

Re: Deletion of Image (Micro_CMYK.gif)

Santal Dogs

Image:SOHO instruments pnggray 300.png

Jog Falls

Carolyn vs. Keith Henson

Confidential and Hush-Hush: magazine covers from the 1950’s

Image:Jlilly3.jpg Deleted due to use of Mozilla logo, but Mozilla logo is free to use

Please restore Commons gallery for "Belcourt (quartier d'Alger)"

Guadalupe Salcedo and Dario Silva Silva's portraits

Maps by Sven Rosborn

Image of dead American soldier

Please help

Images/page

Undeletion of file Displayport-Cable.jpg

Kerjman

I would like to request that the Supper at Aardman painting is undeleted.

Permission to use file

???? ???

File:Sevn.jpg and File:In7haFUNklabb.jpg

Mardi Gras float

nude photo by Peter Klashorst

Various picture & page

Image:Nature_Materials_Nov_2008.jpg

Arthur P. Kroll

Image:YitzchakNissim.jpg, Image:TIMNA.JPG, and others

please undelete "Fluid Mechanics Applications.jpg"

unknown image

Re: undelete

Python images

David "Chino" Rheems image

Higgins.jpg

Please undelete Maria K.jpg

What for an arbitrariness?,!

World War I armistice

Navigation menu

Search