Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2007-05

< Commons:Undeletion requests‎ | Archive

2007-05 edit

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

The image Image:KrikstenuMokykla.jpg edit

The image Image:KrikstenuMokykla.jpg has been deleted incorrectly, since it has been done by me. Please, undelete it and give the feature PD-self. CD 11:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Please add the PD-Self tag straight away and you'll be ok--MichaelMaggs 12:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:First national bank US with HABS border.jpg edit

Please undelete. Although the same image of the 1st National Bank is in Commons, that image does not have the original HABS border. The version with the border was used as an example of HABS archival photography (in the article "Historic American Buildings Survey") -- and as such the border is an integral part. — Eoghanacht talk 20:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Boydtinsley.jpg edit

Please undelete this image – it was uploaded with a free Creative Commons license ({{Cc-by-sa-2.5}}) and was removed without any type of prior notification by Jkelly for having a non-commercial license. –Crashintome4196 01:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

undelete pic files please edit

Hi there, i had uploaded 13 pic files that i have recieved permission to use from the source (www.waxorchard.com) they are all pictures or logos for bands and one is the official logo for wax orchard. i have taken all the necessary steps required on wikipedia to get the copyright ok. i had found a big gold box with copyright permission information on it proving that i have the go ahead to use the pics. please see all that i have done and undelete all of my pic files as it took me a very long time to upload them and do all this work. the article i am using them for is wax orchard

thanks! Beatricewaxo 21:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So where excactly is this proof of a free license? -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Not done No additional information provided. Siebrand 09:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Andropov.jpg edit

I need this file for several articls in various languages; please, undelete it. Domitori 00:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The people should know their Executioners!

Родина должна знать своих стукачей!

Hay que conocer quien habia nos impromido!

Do you want to reupload it to wikis that allow fair use? -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Not done No additional information provided. Siebrand 09:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Uncle bush.jpg edit

English: Don't delete because ten Wikipedians for anywhere countries uploaded this image in own user sites. --Starscream 22:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Polski: Nie można kasować, ponieważ dziesięciu Użytkowników z różnych państw umieściło ten obrazek na swych stronach osobistych. --Starscream 22:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UNDELETE OUR IMAGE IMMEDIATELY, FREEDOM KILLERS! --The Rain Keeper1 17:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

English: Don't delete - censorship?? 213.158.196.71 18:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Polski: każdy ma prawo do swojej oceny, czy można cenzurować sumienie?? 213.158.196.71 18:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep deleted. This was correctly deleted in the first place. It's nothing to do with censorship: it's simply not within the scope of this project. Please find somewhere else to host it. --MichaelMaggs 19:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per Micheal. The images were deleted following a deletion process (Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Uncle bush.jpg) and have since been redeleted. Undeletion is not an option. I have protected the page. / Fred Chess 13:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:KEITHR.JPG edit

The image, a own work of an user was deleted by an administrator because an common user from another language wiki "doubted" the ownership, because the image in question has good quality. Of couse the user who doubted on the authenticity knows zero about the uploader. There was neither a real debate about the matter. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:KEITHR.JPG

Is this a reason to delet an image? People who contribute here in good faith can be called desonest by an administrator? I ask reasonable administrators to undelect the image or to agree it can be reuploaded.(or even SEE it). It is a nice shot of Keith Richards in concert in Brazil with the Rolling Stones twelve years ago, a great acquisition to Wiki Commmons, a pro work. Thank you. Machocarioca 06:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)Machocarioca[reply]

  Comment - I have reviewed the image, and the photographer must have been in a very privileged position to have taken it. If it is yours, please upload a higher resolution version of it to establish your credentials. If you can, I'd be happy to undelete or we can keep the better one. --MichaelMaggs 19:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Comment - Machocarioca could also upload other pictures of the same concert (here, on Flickr or anywhere), since a pro photographer normally takes several pictures of the same event. Another option is to take a picture of the negative, since he said before that the picture was taken with a non digital camera. That's easy. We'd be very happy to have a free picture like that here, and preferably with a good size, since 66kb is a thumbnail size. Dantadd✉ 19:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Michael, the photographer must be in a very, very privileged position to take a shot like this. In fact, 30 or 40 feet from the artist, on a press (just photographers and cinematographers) catwalk in a lowel level, direct in front of the band and (in mega stars concerts) you have just three musics to do your job. To shoot this quality of image, in 1995 you needed a Nikon F3 300mm lens F:5.6 1/60 speed 400 ASA B&W Kodak Tri-X film (the original is B&W). And talent, of course :-) And this press area credential is not easy to get, mainly with Stones managers in tour, but I worked to a great brazilian rock magazine at the time, when I was a pro. (Today, many kind of pro people work to me, :-)) The point is: I'm not a net expert and I don't know what higher resolution you're talking about. The image is full lenght, not cropped , the original is a copy in 24X30 size, it was scanned, saved in .jpg and uploaded. Do you want a version in .bmp? Is this? I'm not certain if they accept this format here, but I can do that. Show me the way :-)
PS: The problem here dear user, is not authenticity, is personal relationship with two troublemaker children. If this image was signed John Doe instead of Machocarioca, this mess here wouldn't begin, for shure. Read the original discuss.Machocarioca 01:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)Machocarioca[reply]

As seen, Machocarioca does not want to present any other evidence. No bigger version, no picture of the negative, no other pictures of the same event, nothing. All the rhetoric of Machocarioca is already known: he disqualifies others and makes compliments to himself (talented, pro etc...). In the Portuguese Wikipedia he says that he is the only one who writes good articles, and here on Commons he's the only one who uploads good pictures. But please, check the contributions of Machocarioca and verify if he has uploaded any other "pro" picture (made by him or by his servants).
As you can see here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Infrogmation&diff=prev&oldid=2180784 , Infrogmation was suspicious about the picture right after Machocarioca uploaded it. At the time (June 2006), Infrogmation asked if he had a higher resolution copy or if he was saving this better copy for commercial user. Machocarioca answered: "I have a higher resolution copy.". Now he says he doesn't know what a "higher resolution" is. Dantadd✉ 20:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I admit that it is possible that Machocarioca took the image himself. But I agree with the others who request further evidence. For example, when scanning in an image, it can usually be scanned in at quite a high resolution. / Fred Chess 20:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. He said back in June 2006 that he had a better resolution copy, but now he argues that he doesn't understand what a better resolution picture is. He wants us to beg him to upload his wonderful pro picture here. And, please note that among ALL the pictures he uploaded, this is the only one of which he claims to be the author. Very eloquent.. Dantadd✉ 20:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Chess and Michael, I'm going to scan it in higher resolution than the old one , 56 Kb, and place here the link to it in Commons. So, as Michael said, I can "establish my credentials". Thanks. Machocarioca 02:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Machocarioca[reply]
Fred and Michael, the image was uploaded in higher resolution (750 kb) and is placed here [1] I hope my credentials are just fine now. Thank you. Machocarioca 08:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Machocarioca[reply]

It's up to you to believe him or not. I don't. The only proof that should accepted is a picture of the negative or other pictures of the same concert. As I said above: "please note" that among ALL the pictures he uploaded, this is the only one of which he claims to be the author. Dantadd✉ 13:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course this is the one I claim to be mine among all pictures I have already uploaded. Because this is the one that is mine. The only proof that should be accepted as said by this user bellow is his POV and not supported by any rules here. The user is just a troublemaker as you can read.Thank you. Machocarioca 18:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Machocarioca[reply]
You think I'm a troublemaker and I think you are a liar, but as you said, it's just my humble point of view. Dantadd✉ 19:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closed. If there are complaints about the new upload Image:KeithR2.JPG, the image should be nominated for deletion in the standard way. / Fred Chess 20:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

  edit

No reason was given (link). Tagging was OK as far as I know. Please undelete or explain. Mattes 10:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Not done No additional information provided. Siebrand 09:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Cremation_in_Pashupatinath.jpg edit

This became undeleted incorrectly. This might be due to the copy operation of this picture from the german branch of Wikipedia to the commons by an unknown user. During this copy operation maybe te license information became modified incorrectly. License is identical to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Pashupatinath_Hindhus_only.jpg Remark: It is not amusing to delete an old picture with a warning time of one week only. I understand copyright considerations, but I have the feeling the work of an admin requires a little bit more flair. Rhaessner 08:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted. Please add the correct source and licensing information, or the image will be deleted in 7 days. -- Bryan (talk to me) 08:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Slinger.jpg edit

Image:Hop2.jpg and Image:Balearic Slinger.jpg.

These three images all had a PD license and were uploaded by their author (I can't verify this as their pages have been deleted ;-), with clear info and an email address for the author (shumate_j@bellsouth.net). There was some confusion because they had subsequently also been uploaded to another site [2] which had restricted licensing, but it was clear that they had been uploaded here first and were not downloads from that site. I can find no deletion request or discussion about these images and their discussion pages (where I had pointed out there was no evidence of cv) have been deleted, but I don't think anyone else discussed the deletion there either. So was there any discussion and/or any evidence that the licenses were invalid? --Tony Wills 12:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming good faith, I have undeleted the images. However, it might be a good idea to have a formal Commons:OTRS permission for the files, to prevent future confusion. -- Bryan (talk to me) 13:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was quick :-). I think some of their discussion pages are still missing (unless I put notes about the situation as I saw it somewhere else). I haven't contacted the author myself, but w:en:User:Gaius_Cornelius apparently has, see w:en:Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Balearic_slinger --Tony Wills 13:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Done As per above discussion. Siebrand 09:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

All... edit

...the images I uploaded have been deleted without any valid reason, because I took those photos myself with my mobile phone. So, I want someone to explain me why an idiot user did this unacceptable disanster, because I spent hours of my time to uploaud the files that he/she deleted. Because of this I won't never contribute more on this site, if you don't want my 100 images, I assure you I won't cry... If Commons doesn't deserve my work, I'm completey ininterested in that. But I PRETEND AN EXPLAINATION. Although I'll immediately stop uploading files on Commons, I want to know all details about all this trouble. It's a right of mine. And if you're happy, I just finished to miss hours of my time uploading files for silly people. That's all. --Max 17:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why they were deleted. I can't find that there has been any discussion about it. It appears that Lcarsdata (talk · contribs) has been acting on his own, so you'll have to ask him. I cannot see any immediate reason why they should be deleted. / Fred Chess 16:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Comment Have you ever taken a pictures with a Kodak camera? -- Bryan (talk to me) 17:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Comment After further investigations, a share of the images you have uploaded are copyright violations. Lcarsdata had reasons to suspect that images you have uploaded were not allowed. -- Bryan (talk to me) 17:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lcarsdata, as far as I know, will be away from the project during the next week... --Tooby 18:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lcarsdata undeleted all of them. I redeleted Image:Enna50-Settimana Santa.jpg, Image:Enna51-Venerdì Santo.jpg, Image:Enna39-Venerdì Santo.jpg, Image:Enna56-Settimana Santa.jpg, Image:Enna52-Logo Università Kore.jpg, Image:Enna55-Settimana Santa.jpg, Image:Enna57-Settimana Santa.jpg, Image:Enna58-Settimana Santa.jpg, Image:Enna60-Venerdì Santo.jpg being copyright violation. I am search for more copyright violations among your uploads. Please point out all images you have not taken yourself, or it may happen again that some of the images you took yourself will be accidentally deleted. -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Images such as Image:Enna44-settimana santa.jpg appear to have been photographed from a book? If so, they are not self-created. / Fred Chess 19:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about this guys, I made a big presumption that because some of the uploads where copyvios (such as the ones from books highlighted). This was backed up by the majority of the images being at a low resolution. I have undeleted them all so you guys can now decide which ones should be deleted. BTW I will not be away for a week due to my parents slack punishment. Lcarsdata 19:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Max appears reluctant to answer questions about the origin of his pictures. I'm going to commence deleting those images that appear to have been taken from a book, as Max himself has said that they come from books that are out of copyright. They may be so in Italy (per deprecated PD-Italy template), but not here.... images should be OK if they are in "crisp" quality, such as Image:Enna14-Panoramica bis.jpg and Image:Enna33-Uto Ughi in concerto.jpg, while images that have a faded look and somewhat blurry, such as Image:Enna11-Palazzo del Governo.jpg and Image:Enna41-Settimana Santa.jpg, are probably from a book and can be speedy deleted (I've asked Max to respond on his talk page, he has had his time). / Fred Chess 18:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, new directives again. Max gave an explanation for several of the image on my talk page. So don't delete anything before you've read it. / Fred Chess 20:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closed with results as per above discussion. Siebrand 09:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Foxie_with_player.jpg and Image:Wolf-n-horsy.jpg edit

Images were uploaded by original author licensed {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0}}. Images were immediately deleted by a Commons admin commented "Not appropriate material for Commons". I asked admistrator to cite a corresponding policy, but he sent me here. I ask you for explanation. 82.199.102.55 15:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by me. Two "furry" cartoons - however one was of a wolf having intercourse with a horse, the other was of a female fox playing with her genitals and breasts (I considered the "player" as somewhat irrelevant). These I deemed to be outside project scope and not of value to the projects --Herby talk thyme 15:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It has value for the projects as much as everything in category Erotic art. It is uploaded and used in ru-wiki. Please explain where in Commons:Project scope is written that "furry cartoons" are outside project scope. Herbythyme, are you an art critic expert? 82.199.102.55 15:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with the principle of undeletion at all, however I have made my views clear and you have too. I do not propose to undelete these files - it may well be that another admin will be prepared to do so --Herby talk thyme 18:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm undeleting these (Herby is a friend of mine, so hopefully not a big worry). The first image ("foxie") is certainly more useful than the second, but it strikes me that if we are going to write serious wikibooks for use in classrooms populated by pubescent and adolescent youngsters, we're going to need cartoonish images of sexual acts, positions, and so on. These certainly aren't the best examples of the sorts of images needed, but by building up a category of such images and encouraging artists to contribute more, we may end up with a good collection of useful images that can be used in a sex-ed book (and we should bear in mind that actual photographs of sex would never be acceptable for textbooks used in the US, and perhaps other countries). --SB_Johnny|talk|books 00:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Flag of Bulgaria 1967-1971.gif and Image:Flag of Bulgaria 1946-1967.gif edit

No idea why these are deleted, they are used hundredths of times on different wikipedia's... (simply destroying the article en:Flag_of_Bulgaria as trivial example). Moreover, i can't see what the problem would be with a plain old simple flag. --LimoWreck 16:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently restore or reuploaded. Siebrand 09:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Flag-Aalter.gif edit

No reason to delete. Moreover, a flemish municipality flag , no sensible motivation to delete anyway. (certainly no copyright on old flags etc...) --LimoWreck 17:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, a flemish municipality flag. These flags are always PD as also the reproductions are. Please put back this image. Sonuwe 22:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  DoneWas according to Siebrand not a coat of arms, and thus improperly tagged {{PD-Coa}}. I have however restored the image, because {{PD-Vlaams-gemeentewapen}} applies. -- Bryan (talk to me) 16:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Miyagi vote.png edit

Deleted by MECU "no definitive licence"; it could be but I remembered the situation it was uploaded, and it was obviously made by the uploader. Since there is no info except the given comment, I request for undeletion, for the purpose to retrieve the data of author(s) at this moment. I am personally very shocked with this deletion and feel the local community should be informed before the deletion, specially for the projects their uploader has been disabled and has forced to rely on commons. --Aphaia 16:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Not done The image was a derivative work of ja:画像:Japan_map.png, which has explicitly written "DO NOT COPY THIS IMAGE TO WIKIMEDIA COMMONS." -- Bryan (talk to me) 16:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Chu.JPG edit

No reason to delete. It was issued as a PD image by the original author [3] and did not fall under any unlawfulness such as copyvio. In Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Chu.JPG, there were two votes cast and both were for KEEP. Deletion Request in Japanese Wikipedia is still on going, and nothing has been determined; actually, it was claimed "unencyclopedic" by the user who submitted the request in jawp, but this "reason" is opposed by many. In fact, there are lots of similar images under Category:Kisses and used in various projects. Yassie 22:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Kwai Nyu Rugby Club edit

Please udelete the article on the Kwai Nyu Rugby Club. It is a historically and culturally important landmark team. One of the oldest in North America. Certainly important to the history of rugby and athletics in the Midwest.

There was no Kwai Nyu Rugby Club on commons. You seem to miss it from http://en.wikipedia.org [4] from where it was deleted with a deletion request [5] Maybe you meant en:Wikipedia:Deletion review? Platonides 13:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Category:Municipalities of São Paulo (state) edit

Please, undelete this category. w:São Paulo is a city of the State of w:São Paulo (state), in Brazil. Municipalities are subdivisions of states of Brazil, and we need the deleted category to classify the municipalities of the State of São Paulo. --Juiced lemon 22:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  •   Oppose Dantadd✉ 23:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC) - This disruptive user wants to boss everybody around with his views. I'm fed up. I've spent hours and hours trying to give order to categories related to the city of São Paulo and the state, but he keeps imposing English Wikipedia centered views about this matter.[reply]
You are misleading. I didn't invent the rule Categories are in English; this rule was often discussed, always confirmed because it is needed for efficiency. I want to apply this rule, and you ignore it; so the disruption is yours. --Juiced lemon 00:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to mix two different things: categories in English and categories based on English Wikipedia. I completely agree with the first one: if possible, all categories should be written in English. However, the use the English language DOES NOT mean to use English Wikipedia patterns, rules and so on. In the Portuguese Wikipedia we have "São Paulo" for the state, and "São Paulo (city)" for its capital and this Brazilian rule must prevail here, because most of users that deal with these categories are Brazilians and there's absolutely no rule that imposes English Wikipedia patterns here. We use the English language but we are not obligated to use the same system used on English Wikipedia. Dantadd✉ 00:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Transport in São Paulo (state) edit

Please, undelete this category for the same reason explained above. --Juiced lemon 23:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  •   Oppose Dantadd✉ 23:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC) - This disruptive user wants to boss everybody around with his views. I'm fed up. I've spent hours and hours trying to give order to categories related to the city of São Paulo and the state, but he keeps imposing English Wikipedia centered views about this matter.[reply]

  Not done as per opposition. Siebrand 09:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Coats of arms of municipalities of São Paulo (state) edit

Please, undelete this category for the same reason explained above. --Juiced lemon 23:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  •   Oppose Dantadd✉ 23:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC) - This disruptive user wants to boss everybody around with his views. I'm fed up. I've spent hours and hours trying to give order to categories related to the city of São Paulo and the state, but he keeps imposing English Wikipedia centered views about this matter.[reply]

Closed, no action taken. This is part of a dispute, where Juiced lemon is one of the parts. There must be consensus for category names first. / Fred Chess 11:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Guarulhos International Airport edit

Abusive speedy deletion. This category name matches exactly the name of the Wikipedia article: w:Guarulhos International Airport, and there is no patent reason for deletion, therefore no reason to delete without discussion.

The English Wikipedia is the reference for English names. If an article title doesn't suit you, go there and start a discussion in order to move the Wikipedia article. Commons is not the place for such debates. --Juiced lemon 09:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the initial version of the Wikipedia article w:Guarulhos International Airport: note that the article has never been moved. So the reason Fred Chess has given is out of place.
The normal way to find media in Commons is to make a search with the title of the matching English Wikipedia article. We are are not discussing about the right name for a category (there are talk pages for that), but about the abusive and agressive deletion of a category, which is obviously useful for searching purposes. Such haste to destroy a serious work is rather unusual, so I wait for explanations and not for personal attacks. --Juiced lemon 13:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat myself:

  • categories written in English: ok.
  • categories based on English Wikipedia standards and rules: not ok

Sic et sempliciter. Dantadd✉ 17:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not restored, as per opposition. Siebrand 09:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Universidad_de_Concepcion_2.GIF edit

User:Jcestepario

please restore: Universidad_de_Concepcion_2.GIF

This image was made completely by my. It does not contain any logo that is protected by author right. In fact, it does not contain any logo of the institution to which reference becomes. This can be verified in: http://www.laudeconce.cl http://www.udec.cl/index.html

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

Image:James randi.jpg edit

Nominated for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:James randi.jpg. Discussion overwhelmingly to keep; deleted. Used in multiple projects; subject of photo who useses it on their own website has specifically emailed giving blanket permission. I request speedy undeletion; as I suggested on the discussion if "anyone can use it" is considered too "vague", an email asking for a more specific licence should be sent to the subject at the address on the image page. -- Infrogmation 14:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I undeleted pending the outcome of this request. I was the admin who deleted and I concur with the nominator: there is no author (copyright holder) mentioned and no explicit license given by the copyright holder. Siebrand 15:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Imho, the image was properly deleted on proper grounds. Somebody should try and get explicit commercial & derivative permission or this image should be redeleted. -- Bryan (talk to me) 17:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Bryan. It needs to be redeleted pending a proper licence. The approval of the subject is not enough, as we have no idea what rights, if any, he has to tell us "anyone can use it". --MichaelMaggs 17:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Not done Image re-delted. Siebrand 21:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Cuisine of Spain edit

According to Commons:By location category scheme, the standard form is Cuisine of LOCATION, since this category name is unambiguous. See also the subcategories in Category:Cuisine by country.

More, w:Cuisine of Spain is a redirect to w:Spanish cuisine; w:Cuisine from Spain doesn't exist.

At the moment, many pictures regarding Cuisine of Spain are wrongly categorized in food categories (dog food is food as well). So, I request the undeletion of this category to recategorize them properly. I don't know the reason for the deletion. --Juiced lemon 17:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted. -- Bryan (talk to me) 18:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inter-project templates edit

Template:Wikibooks, Template talk:Wikibooks, Template:Wikinewspar, Template:Portal:MIDI/Portal:MIDI news , Template:Wikisource author, Template:Wiktionarypar, Template:Wiktionary, Template:Wikisource, Template:Wikiquote, Template:Wikinews.

  1. Commons:Deletion_requests/2007/01#Template:Wikipedia lists only Wikipedia templates.
  2. Interwiki schema at Commons is wikipediocentrist. There is no way to list works avaiable on others Wikimedia projects without using a standard family of templates or giving the autority to every user choosing a way to link back to others projects.

Lugusto • ※ 20:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every single template above is limited to one project, of course there is the obvious possibiliy to use ten or twenty templates to link different language versions in different projects (Wikipedia, Wikisource, Wikiquote). --Polarlys 20:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Every single template above can be fully rewriten to allow, for example {{wikisouce|lang|page}}, displayed like the deleted ones or, using a javascript hack to display interproject links at the sidebar (like the one originally developed at de.wiktionary and currently in use in a few dozens of projects). Simple deleting isn't the solution. Lugusto • ※ 21:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted the templates in their current state because of their analogy to the wikipedia templates (limited possible use). --Polarlys 21:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because is more easy to delete instead of make improvements? If I create a new {{Wikisource}} with multilanguage support, this may result on a speedy delete due to recreation? Lugusto • ※ 04:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the discussion the one linked here and in the edit summary ghoes nowhere. Please restore these links they are useful, or does common no longer want to have links with wikipedia. Gnangarra 03:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lugusto said There is no way to list works avaiable on others Wikimedia projects without using a standard family of templates - but there is. See the example at Category:Australia. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 07:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that template, pfctdayelise. I'm withdrawing my undelete request. Lugusto • ※ 19:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2007-05&oldid=5961820"