Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2007-08

< Commons:Undeletion requests‎ | Archive


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

Image:Internationale Russian.ogg edit

It was deleted for having an indeed invalid PD-Soviet license. As the Russian Internationale was the Soviet anthem through 1943, I would like to request comment as to whether it ca be undeleted with Template:PD-RU-exempt as a Russian state symbol while it was made in 1956.--Jusjih 07:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As there were no objection, I've undeleted this one. I am not Russian speaking so I can't determine the one below though. / Fred J 23:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I speak no Russian, either. As the underlying melody is or may be copyrighted in France until 2014, I am adding Template:PD-Internationale for the sake of French users even though it is PD in most countries including the USA.--Jusjih 08:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

Image:Hymn of ussr instrumental.ogg edit

The same reason for undeletion request as above applies here. Any Russian-speaking admin, please determine if it qualifies as a Russian state symbol.--Jusjih 09:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without objections, I have undeleted it and tagged it PD-RU-exempt with better source info.--Jusjih 11:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

Image:Canon wordmark.svg edit

The logo of Canon Inc. was deleted as "non free trademark". It can't be copyrighted since it's just the word "Canon" in DendaNew typeface, therefore it is free. And trademarking is not a reason for exclusion from Commons. --Hautala 13:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

Image:Kemira wordmark.svg edit

The logo of Kemira Oyj was deleted as "copyrighted trademark". It is the word "Kemira" in some possibly custom typeface, but just adding curves to letters doesn't make them copyrightable. Therefore the wordmark is public domain. And trademarking is not a reason for exclusion from Commons. --Hautala 14:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose unless someone can demonstrate that the logo is "text in a general typeface". —LX (talk, contribs) 20:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The logo can be seen on this page. There's nothing original in the typeface. --Hautala 20:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. This is too simple to be copyrightable. -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done (→O - RLY?) 07:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

Image:Tunturi wordmark.svg edit

The logo of Tunturi Oy was deleted as "trademark". It is the word "TUNTURI" in some possible custom typeface, but still too simple to be copyrightable. You can see the logo on Tunturi website. It was marked as PD-textlogo. Also, trademarking is not a reason for exclusion from Commons. --Hautala 11:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done (→O - RLY?) 07:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

Undeletion Request edit

Hi,

Never done this before ... Hope I do it fine.

The file Image:Population Saint-Genis-Pouilly 03.jpg has been deleted, apparently for lack of a licence. I created this image myself, using Excel ... I've just tried to undelete it. Please tell me how to do it right if I did it wrong.

Cheers,

++ Jepowi

✓ Done -- Image:Population Saint-Genis-Pouilly 03.jpg is undeleted. It was deleted because you didn't add a license. As you already added a license to the image file after deletion, I've added it to the image description page. / Fred J 16:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Escultura de arena 1 Valladolid 2006.jpg edit

Nacatamal (The author) gave his permission in his user page (in Spanish). Thanx --Piolinfax (Tell me) 17:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The images are derivative works of the sculpture. They were deleted because it was unknown whether there was permission of the artist to license the images under the GFDL. They might however be acceptable on Commons if they were taken in a country that has freedom of panorama for sculptures. -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Valladolid mentioned in the titles is Valladolid, Spain, which has freedom of panorama, as I understand it. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Bryan and LX. The relevant part of the link provided by Bryan is this (I guess... I often get lost in official wording) and after reading it I am still not sure if they can or cannot be shown here 20px. I only can add that the works were exhibited for about one week in the main square of the city and they were seen by thousands of people. --Piolinfax (Tell me) 20:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, one week is not permanent. The sculptures must stay somewhere permanently or we need permission from the artist for the images to be allowed. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Bryan. I guess that from 1988 to 2001 is not permanent either. Should this one pass away then?--Piolinfax (Tell me) 21:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Not permament"? I don't understand that argument, what about the Ice sculptures then? (e.g. Image:Ice statue alaska.JPG, Image:Ice Deer.jpg). Delete them too? Regards --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 22:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know how long something must stay to be considered "permanent." But intuitively I would say that one week is not permanent. I'll post on Commons talk:Licensing to ask. -- Bryan (talk to me) 11:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please, where do You have the argument "permanent" from? Sorry, but I have the impression that to Category:Ice sculptures and the images discussed here apply double standards. --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 12:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See Commons:Freedom of panorama and Commons_talk:Licensing#Freedom_of_panorama_and_.22permanent.22. -- Bryan (talk to me) 12:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Summary at Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Permanent_vs_temporal. Lupo 15:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Close. -- Bryan (talk to me) 12:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Two erotic anthropomorphic animal images edit

Image:Foxie_with_player.jpg edit

It has value for the projects as much as everything in category Erotic art. It is already uploaded and used in ru-wiki. But now, this image has been deleted. I have speak much with artist to realese it under CC, but now all my diplomatic work is undertaken. I heard that Wikipedia Commons is not censored. If it is right, maybe you can undelete it again? 82.199.102.55 14:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not done. Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Foxie with player.jpg appears to have resulted in an agreement that the image is not wanted. Perhaps you can upload it to ru-wiki. / Fred J 19:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, i have read it. I'm disagree. Commons:Project scope does not explains why image was deleted.
    "Wikimedia Commons is targeted at media files including photographs, diagrams, animations, music, spoken text and video clips". Image:Foxie with player.jpg is appropriate type of media.
    "Wikimedia Commons is freely licensed". Image:Foxie with player.jpg is {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0}}.
    "Only free file formats are allowed.". Image:Foxie with player.jpg is JPG which is allowed.
    "Wikimedia Commons is a common central media repository of all Wikimedia projects". Image:Foxie with player.jpg was uploaded by original author for use in one of the Wikimedia Projects (for now in Russian Wikipedia in article). So it is not an image collection for personal use.
    "The quality of files". I think quality is enough.
    "The Commons may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive. Like Wikipedia, the Commons is not censored.". Yeah. I suppose it does.
    Thats why i'm appeal it. 82.199.102.55 00:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted unless you can clearly show that the image is needed in some specific article. Commons is not a repository for self created work of questionable utility, there are other sites for that. This case is not about censorship, (and giving it such a heading is incorrectly skewing the discussion so I changed it) it is about whether these images are needed here. We tend to delete images if they are not useful. ++Lar: t/c 18:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is an article - ru:Йифф. 82.199.102.55 07:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose COM:SCOPE says: "Wikimedia Commons is not a web host for e.g. private party photos, self-created artwork without educational purpose and such.", we saw that those pseudo anime porn got deleted in en.wiki (lolicons etc) better to let those upload these on their own wikis rather than on commons, and I don't get how artwork of animals in human form illustrates an article on 'animal sex', that's unencyclopedic, I guess this article only exists on the Russian wikipedia Madmax32 04:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have answered below (Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#Image:Wolf-n-horsy.jpg). 82.199.102.55 09:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Wolf-n-horsy.jpg edit

This image was uploaded by original author and licenced {{GFDL}}. But then it was speedydeleted, undeleted and again deleted. I explained that this image is useful as everything in category Erotic art, but deleting admin said that "Pornographic images of animals are widely considered obscene". I`m agree that image can be considered by some people obscene, but i`m strictly disagree that it is pornography. There very precise category name Animal sex and this images are not deleted. 82.199.102.55 07:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was in my opinion falsely deleted after a deletion request on legal and project scope grounds. See w:Zoosexuality_and_the_law#National_laws. And if it is used in an article [1] then it certainly falls within Commons' scope. Moral grounds, unless there is an actual victim, should never be used as a criteria to deletion. -- Bryan (talk to me) 13:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And the deletion request was closed by an admin who has voiced strong opinions in the request. -- Bryan (talk to me) 13:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call it opinion. I'm not easily affected or offended by graphic content. The only strong opinion I have in this case is that we must not jeopardise the legal integrity of Wikimedia Commons. The Wikipedia page you link to states that distribution of animal porn is prohibited if considered obscene. Pointing this out should not bar me from acting on the consensus of the discussion, which was clear. The arguments in favour of keeping were:
  • That another person's argument in favour of deletion was irrelevant (which is an irrelevant argument in itself)
  • That Commons is not censored (the counter-argument that this does not usurp the law was not responded to for over a week).
  • An unclear argument that the image is useful, which failed to address the legal concerns.
Looking at the debate again, I stand by my initial interpretation that there was a clear consensus in favour of deletion. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pornography is subject to the Miller test. Erotic art not: and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. (emphasis mine, from w:Erotic art). -- Bryan (talk to me) 13:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt an anthropomorphic image of a wolf having sexual intercourse with a disproportionally small horse with female breasts and dripping sexual fluids qualifies as either erotic (relating to "sensual love or the human sex drive") or art, certainly not the former (the latter being much less well-defined). —LX (talk, contribs) 20:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about category Animal sex? Do you think depiction can turn animals intercourse into pornography? 82.199.102.55 08:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you seriously see no difference between neutral depictions of animals naturally procreating versus exaggerated and graphic renditions of anthropomorphic and unrealistically interspecial copulation? —LX (talk, contribs) 19:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Naturally procreating or not or any other moral point of view is not the subject of policys of WC. Don't like it - don't watch it. Wikipedia Commons is a media file repository and is not a tv primetime. The other thing "exaggerated and graphic renditions of anthropomorphic and unrealistically" are an attributs of art and products of process of creativity. Did you ever heard about Francisco Goya or Picasso? 82.199.102.55 11:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikimedia Commons policies are still subordinate to legislation, which – whether you like it or not – is influenced by currently prevailing moral standards. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Moved back here from User talk:LX#Image:Wolf-n-horsy.jpg.

You have closed the deletion request while you had voiced strong opinions in the request [2]. That was unfair and it is against separation of powers. Please undelete this image. 82.199.102.55 08:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear 82.199.102.55,
I moved the discussion back here to keep it in one piece rather than spreading it out over multiple pages, which tends to make things hard to follow. I am watching this page, so there is no need to leave messages on my user talk page.
I did not voice a "strong opinion." I simply made an observation based on my understanding of the applicable laws. This is no more of a "strong opinion" than noting that some uploaded image violates copyright laws.
Separation of powers is a concept used in democratic governments. Commons is neither a government nor a democracy, and you won't see the term mentioned anywhere in Commons' policies or guidelines. There is absolutely no rule that says that participating in a deletion discussion would bar an administrator from acting on the consensus of that discussion (which was clear even if you were to disregard my comments). I and many other administrators do this quite often, mainly because there aren't very many active administrators here and few others that participate in deletion discussions. Disregarding the consensus of the discussion and undeleting the image, now that would be unfair.
I see that in addition to trying to make the deletion out to be about me rather than about the image, you also added the heading above. Very nice and neutral. What was that you said about "strong opinion" again?
—LX (talk, contribs) 18:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The heading just illustrated my observation based on my understanding of how the laws are applicated by Commons admins. Very nice and neutral. Commons is also not your Flickr photo album where you can delete images which you personally dislike. If you dislike anthropomorphic animal images, just leave it, don't look at it. 82.199.102.55 07:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need to make your point in the headings, and doing so is an attempt to skew the discussion. I have no particular opinion about the image. I didn't delete it because of any personal preferences. I deleted it because that was the consensus of the deletion discussion and because, whether you like it or not, Commons has to comply with certain laws in order to stay online. I have asked you, 82.199.102.55, repeatedly not to make this into a personal issue and not to make it into anything else that it isn't. Your insistence on making ad hominem accusations isn't going to change the laws or overrule the deletion discussion, and it's not going to win you any sympathies here, either. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sorry. I just wanted to say "Commons is also not someone's personal Flickr photo album where he can delete..". That was actually an assertion about Wikipedia Commons, not about you. And i still see no evidences that this two images violate Commons:Project scope because of that i have high concern to personal motives of admins who has deleted images. 82.199.102.55 10:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, which part of "I have no particular opinion about the image. I didn't delete it because of any personal preferences. I deleted it because that was the consensus of the deletion discussion" was unclear? It wasn't personally motivated; please stop assuming bad faith. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think deletion of this two images was a mistake, rather than a bad intention. 82.199.102.55 09:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Warning on civility placed on user talk page. I will block if this inability to accept consensus and remain civil continues --Herby talk thyme 09:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Haven't seen you for ages, Herby! 82.199.102.55 10:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Herby is one of our most active administrators. You might have noticed if you hadn't been too busy focussing on this one issue. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note. The admin which deleted this images without any discussion [3], [4] trying to force an opponent to accept "consensus" by blocking him from discussion [5]. Very Nice. 82.199.102.55 10:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd welcome any user or admin reviewing my warnings for your incivility (someone may even be less patient than me). Please bear in mind consensus is something rather wider than agreeing with your view (& you do appear to be the only one who wishes to continue this discussion) --Herby talk thyme 10:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Try looking here Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Wolf-n-horsy.jpg. 7 vs 3 is not a consensus. Arguments of LX about that Miller test failure are already refuted in this discussion by Bryan. Btw, as i mentioned above, according to Commons:Deletion guidelines#Appeal the deletion can be appealed. 82.199.102.55 09:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is not the same as a unanimous vote or the result of tallying opinions an adversarial debate; it is something that is aimed for, developed, and in some cases changed, over time. Please see meta:Consensus for how the term is usually applied here.
In this case (and ignoring my own comments), the nominator suggested that the image did not serve a purpose on Commons. Madmax32 argued for deletion on legal grounds. Herbythyme stood by the previous deletion, believing it was not appropriate material for Commons. FSHL rejected Herby's motivation as irrelevant and "voted" for keep, but did not provide a reason for disagreeing, nor for why the image ought to be kept.
Bryan argued that the image should be kept because it was in use and because "Commons is not censored". Samulili argued that the image was outside of Commons:Project scope. Wooyi raised concerns that it may be used for vandalism and referred to the other related image, reaffirming the rationale behind its deletion. Majorly also considered the image outside of the project scope. You or someone with your IP address argued that the image was useful similarly to contents in Category:Erotic art and again noted that it was in use.
Evaluating this, we see that there are a number of participants who consider the image out of scope, even after it was noted that the image was in use. (Granted, nobody developed an argument as to why an image that is in use might be out of scope, but then again, it wasn't really made clear how the image was used either, making it difficult to evaluate its actual usefulness.)
There was no counter-argument to the legality concerns during the deletion discussion, even by those who mentioned the absence of (self-)censorship, nor to the vandalism concerns. Thus, I found the voices in favour of deletion were not only more numerous, but (more importantly) they also raised more concerns than were resolved by any counter-arguments. That, not "7 votes vs. 3 votes" is what a consensus looks like. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose COM:SCOPE says: "Wikimedia Commons is not a web host for e.g. private party photos, self-created artwork without educational purpose and such.", we saw that those pseudo anime porn got deleted in en.wiki (lolicons etc) better to let those upload these on their own wikis rather than on commons, and I don't get how artwork of animals in human form illustrate article on 'animal sex', that's unencyclopedic, I guess this article only exists on the Russian wikipedia Madmax32 04:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anonymous does not forgive! I thought Wikipedia Commons is the project created specially to serve for other Wikimedia projects. Russian Wikipedia is one these projects and there is an article in need of an illustration. Wolf-n-horsy and Foxie_with_player are free of copyright and fit in the WC requrements. COM:SCOPE says nothing about limitation on erotic anthropomorphic images and gives no numbers how many wikis must use image before it can be uploaded. That is my explantion. You can also read the second explanation made by SB Johnny that this artwork can be a substitute for real sex photographs [6]. P.S. You can also try this useful tool on many images stored in Wikipedia Commons. As you can see much of them are not used and don't have any special explantion of encyclopedic usage that i have already provide for images Wolf-n-horsy and Foxie_with_player. 82.199.102.55 09:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
However Bryan's is the only opinion here other than yours for undeletion. There are comments against undeletion from LX, Fred J, Lar & Madmax32. You already have the images on Russian Wikipedia - I consider that you are merely making a point & suggest given the length of time and lack of support you have that you leave it now - thanks --Herby talk thyme 09:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is to simple just to count opinions. 82.199.102.55 09:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only way of establishing consensus that I am aware of --Herby talk thyme 10:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<reset indent> Reply to Madmax: I fail to see how an image that is in use on another wiki is unfit for Commons from a project scope point of view. From Commons:Project scope: This also means that files uploaded to the Commons have to be useful for some Wikimedia project. If it is useful to some Wikimedia project, and those images apparently are, it should not be excluded from Commons on project scope grounds. -- Bryan (talk to me) 12:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you read the replies from 82.199.102.55 above he is trying to claim it is an educational artwork and 'substitute for real sex photographs' that's ridiculous to claim his fictional artwork of wolves and horses in human form are suitable 'replacements'. At least be honest if your artwork is fantasy erotica, it's not educational. Madmax32 18:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done (→O - RLY?) 07:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was Undeleted.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

request undelete of Image:Klemperer.jpg. per library of congress image description, there are "No known restrictions on publication." thus, image is in the public doman. --emerson7 | Talk 22:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wish the info box that the uploader added had more than just the link to the IMAGE... (if I may be so vain, see Image:HAER_WaldoHancock_03_320292pv.jpg for example, that gives links to the info page as well as the original image) the LoC is hard to search to find provenance. But here is the provenance for the image: http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/h?pp/PPALL:@field(NUMBER+@1(cph+3c05606)) ... I agree it says no known restrictions. But that's not quite the same as no restrictions... see http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/pprr.pl?coll=ggbain&title=Bain%20Collection&repro=LC-USZ62-105606%20(b%26w%20film%20copy%20neg.)&call=BIOG%20FILE%20-%20Klemperer,%20Otto%20%3citem%3e%20[P%26P]&medium=1%20photographic%20print%20(postcard)&itemLink=h?pp/PPALL:@field(NUMBER+@1(cph+3c05606)) where it is stated that the LoC does not know one way or another whether there are restrictions. The safest stuff from the LoC is stuff that was taken by government employees. Personally I find this somewhat confusing. Hope this info helps... ++Lar: t/c 00:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support undeletion because I assume that the LOC's researchers made a good-faith effort to research the copyright on this image.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs|Flickr review status nom) 02:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support they have access to the entire archives of the library of congress for their searches, which is supposed to include copies of every work copyrighted in the United States. If they can't find copyright restrictions it's likely they don't exist. -Nard 14:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Please see Template_talk:PD-LOC. It seems that an image from LoC with "no known restrictions" is no guarantee that the image actually has no restrictions. Samulili 13:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Usually it means the photo was either donated to the library of congress or it was never registered for copyright. If it was never registered there'd be an absence of proof of anything, rather than a positive determination it was PD. The library of congress searches its archives, which includes everything registered for copyright in the US, before making those determinations. Please tell me how that's not an almost assurance of being PD? -Nard 19:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Bain collection was purchased by the Library of Congress in 1948, so they would have placed anything unpublished in the public domain at that point (and even if something was copyrighted to begin with, 1948 was before any post-1923 works could be renewed anyways). We have a {{PD-Bain}} tag for these. "No known restrictions" is the most the LoC will say (see their page on what their phrases mean). Carl Lindberg 05:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support That bain news agency went out of business long before copyright renewals, they are public domain Madmax32 05:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted. -- Bryan (talk to me) 13:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the discussion was ✓ Done.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This image was deleted for insufficient accreditation. I added the missing information, but neglected to add the appropriate copyright tag, which in this case should be {{PD-Israel}}. Because of this, I assume, the image was automatically deleted by Siebot.

If you restore the image, I will gladly add the missing template.

Tnx,

--Ravpapa 07:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

✓ Done I have added the correct tag. -- Bryan (talk to me) 18:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the discussion was "The correct place to make deletion requests is at Commons:Deletion requests. Please follow the instructions there. You can also click the "Nominate for deletion" link on the image description page for each image. Note that you will have to provide a reason as to why you think they should be deleted."   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and sorry (I don't speak english...) André Koehne TALK TO ME 19:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those images have not been deleted. Therefore, they can't be undeleted. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, I don't know as doing this... Thanks. André Koehne TALK TO ME 15:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The correct place to make deletion requests is at Commons:Deletion requests. Please follow the instructions there. You can also click the "Nominate for deletion" link on the image description page for each image. Note that you will have to provide a reason as to why you think they should be deleted. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the discussion was "I will not undelete it."   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There apparently used to be a file called: Loxosceles hirsuta - Sicariidae (Jeremy Miller) detail.jpg I can't find it, and I suspect that it is no longer accessible because of the long and complicated file name -- which gets truncated. Can somebody who knows how find it and fix the file name so that it becomes accessible again and then drop it into the Araneae gallery? Thanks. Patrick Edwin Moran 22:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You probably mean Image:Loxosceles hirsuta - Sicariidae (Jeremy Miller) detail.jpg. Its deletion was discussed and explained at User talk:Sarefo#Watermark_on_Image:Oarces_reticulatus_-_Mimetidae_.28Jeremy_Miller.29_detail.jpg. With that in mind, I will not undelete it. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the discussion was " Not done, George Harrison's picture was copyrighted and this was a derivative work."   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am the author of the work - you might doupt that I exist, but I do. I spend some time making the work, much longer than it took you to delete it! --FinnWikiNo 09:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[7][8][reply]

This image was deleted after the original author of the drawing clearly stated his existence in the discussion at Commons:Deletion_requests. Roll back the image or give information about which other drawing it is derived from. Jeblad 10:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Support. The image was proposed deleted as a derivative image, without any reference to where it's been derived from. Based on input from the uploader, it seems to me that this is a new work inspired by a photo, not a derivative work. The only support for deletion was from a user doubting that the uploader was the creater, a reason which seems to have been lifter from this air; a look at his other uploads would have confirmed that he knows his way around computer graphics. Cnyborg 11:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what it is based on. It does bear som similarity to The Warhol image, with the posture of the hand a likely inspiration. I don't know if it is enough for it to be called a derivative work, but I think so.  Oppose / Fred J 11:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; I've removed the support for undeletion. It's too similar to the Warhol image for my liking; changing the colours doesn't help at all since Warhol used to do that, and the slight difference in posture is probably not enough to call it a new, separate work. Cnyborg 11:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose "Wikimedia Commons is not a web host for e.g. private party photos, self-created artwork without educational purpose and such." I was not aware of George Harrison having a scarlet red tattoo of arabic/farsi writing on his right hand palm. Besides, this could be anyone of my hippie friends. Samulili 11:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Oppose There is nothing to see at the page you linked to. — H92 (t · c · no) 14:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose - until and unless FinnWikiNo can show that the underlying photographic image is as free as the licensing applied to the derivative work.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 01:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, George Harrison's picture was copyrighted and this was a derivative work. (→O - RLY?) 08:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the discussion was "Undeleted".   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Attention ---- ++Lar: t/c 20:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could an admin please undelete Image:Sign of the Deathly Hallows.svg? Its copyright status was still under active discussion when it was summarily and unilaterally deleted. --bdesham ★ 19:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issue turns on whether a symbol as simple as this is eligible for copyright. I'd tend to say it is not and the image should be undeleted. But I also don't think that the speedy deletion was a bad thing, better safe than sorry. We can discuss while deleted, after all. ++Lar: t/c 20:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to agree. For non-admins who can't see the deleted image: it's a black-on-white bisected equilateral triangle with an incircle. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted / Fred J 15:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the discussion was "Restored and relisted."   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is an image from the official announcement of the 2006 Thai coup. The army seized control of all broadcasting and announced it was taking over. There was clear consensus at the discussion this made it an official report which was public domain under Thai law. Then it was deleted anyway as a copyvio. It cannot be a copyvio if it is public domain under the law in its country of origin. -Nard 15:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose as we can only guess whether it is really public domain in its country of origin. / Fred J 15:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That doesn't change the fact there was consensus at the original discussion. If necessary it should be re-listed, but your one opinion doesn't overturn the original consensus. -Nard 01:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restored and relisted. (→O - RLY?) 13:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of this discussion was "restored (with speedy deletion template), someone else shall decide here." A similar discussion continues at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:FloppyRom Magazine.jpg.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The file Image:FloppyRom Magazine.jpg was deleted for copyright violation. This image showed how a special record could be bound in a magazine. This particular record held a computer program and was published in a computer magazine, Interface Age. There is very little magazine text visible and you can not hear the audio. The record label contains utilitarian text.

This image shows the mechanics of how to publish a record in a printed magazine. I don't see a copyright violation. I own the magazine and took the picture. I upload my images on en.wikipedia and some of them get copied over to the commons. (I just created this account on commons.) I did not get any warning this images was about to be deleted.

I am aware of Fair Use on en.wikipedia but I don't see how this image is non free. This image was used in 3 articles. The main one is Kansas_City_standard. [9]

Swtpc6800 -- Swtpc6800 01:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

restored (with speedy deletion template), someone else shall decide here. --Polarlys 11:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picture is free, keep --Historiograf 21:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the discussion was "we do not have the means to act on deletion requests pertaining to English Wikipedia".   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 16:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Swiss Jagdkommando page I created was falsly accused of beein a hoax.


Sources: 1. Der totale Wiederstand (Jagdkommando as enemy of Resistance) 2. Total Resistance (English Translation of above)ISBN 978-087364-021-3 3. Gefechtstechnik Band 2 Teil 2 Jagdkommando as support unit. ISBN 3-9521127-6-3

Above books are copyright of the Schweizer Unteroffiziersverband (Swiss NCO Union).

Person denouncing subject has neither sources nor authoritiy to state that Swiss Jagdkommandos did not exist. Possibly his english was not good enough to understand content. I have studied Military History, Strategy and Analysis in London and have studied military history for 30 years. It is tedious when non-scolars of subjects can throw work back like this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.217.54.254 (talk • contribs) at 13:37, 5 Aug 2007 (UTC)

Please give us an actual page or image name so that we can review the deletion. I can't find enything of that exact name - thanks --Herby talk thyme 13:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Herby

The paghe deleted was: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jagdkommando&diff=prev&oldid=135796220

I had added the content under the title "Jagdkommando", by this not implying any connection to Austrian Jagdkommando on the same page (hence name Swiss Jagdkommando).

I have since made a new seperate page under: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Jagdkommando

Thanks Jaq333

This is Wikimedia Commons' page for requesting undeletion of contents that has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons, a media repository used by the different language editions of Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. With a few exceptions (such as Commons administrators who just happen to also be administrators on English Wikipedia), we do not have the means to act on deletion requests pertaining to English Wikipedia as opposed to Wikimedia Commons.
To request undeletion of an article or file on English Wikipedia, please see en:Wikipedia:Deletion review. However, neither of the pages that you refer to have been deleted.[10][11] —LX (talk, contribs) 15:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Undelete with licence changed to "PD-US-no notice".   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 16:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deleted as a copyvio without notice to me. Pre-1978 copyright registrations are a matter of public record, so the deleting admin could easily verify my claim this image is not registered for copyright. In fact, this image is NOT ON THEM, nor does it bear a copyright notice. This image cannot be a copyvio as it was never registered for copyright. Furthermore, law enforcement records in New Mexico are considered "public" since 1961 ("It is clear that those records which are necessary and incidental to carrying out the duties imposed upon an individual by operation of law are generally deemed public records. 1961-62 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 61-137"[12]) "Public" in this case does not mean public domain, but it does mean available to the public under records requests. The legal definition of publication in the United States includes "offering to distribute" the work to the public. Since New Mexico declared its records open in 1961, this image was published (or offered for distribution) from the moment of its creation, and it bears no copyright notice nor was it ever registered for copyright. Hence it was published pre-1978 with no copyright notice, making it public domain. -Nard 03:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from admin who deleted: I recalled an essentially identical image from the same source, en:Image:Billgates_mugshot.jpg, was deleted as a copyright problem on en:Wikipedia back in September 2005 for lack of evidence of free licence. The Commons upload here was labeled as "PD-art", which it clearly is not, and sourced to TheSmokingGun.com where I noticed nothing to support the free licence claim. I have no objection to the image if it can be demonstrated to be accurately free and is properly tagged; this upload was not. -- Infrogmation 12:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had it tagged {{PD-art|PD-US-no notice}} which may have been a bit confusing. I am not opposed to submitting this to the community for a regular deletion. Simply put, however, since the state of New Mexico offers all of its records to the public they are legally considered published upon creation, and were never registered for copyright back when they had the chance. -Nard 13:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Bill Gates mugshot.png edit

This was recently undeleted and yet again has been speedy deleted. I object to this image being speedied AGAIN with no notice. The deletion summary indicates a false claim of publication. Once again I submit the same argument as before, and the votes supporting undeletion. The image was published at creation by New Mexico law. Simple as that. If necessary I will submit this image to a regular deletion before the community. Also there is a claim of no source in the deletion summary. I strongly object to this. The Albuquerque Police Department is cited, as is the Smoking Gun. The Smoking Gun is run by Court TV[13] which is owned by Time Warner[14]. It is laughable to claim they are not a valid source for original copies of legal documents. -Nard 03:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted as per previous undeletion databate. Siebrand 06:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

image:Lisunov_L2.jpg edit

I object to this image being deleted without discussion. It is a soviet union PD image from 1939 and should not have been deleted without discussion. Wikipedia licence choices for soviet PD images are not the easiest to work through, and some assistance (rather than speedy deletion) is sometimes required. If Wikipedia admins are not up to speed on soviet PD images, they should ask for help Hoserjoe 03:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. It's Commons administrators, not Wikipedia administrators. (→O - RLY?) 04:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Loupsolitaire jdr.jpg edit

Bonjour à vous, comme m'entionné dans votre charte, il est interdit d'utiliser une image sans le concentement de ceux qui l'ont créé. Hors j'ai demandé la permission à la COMPAGNIE "LE GRIMOIRE" et ceux qui m'ont répondu ont accepté que je l'utilise pour WikiPedia... alors pourquoi la retirer? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blackshield77 (talk • contribs) at 22:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

English: Hello with you, like entionné me in your charter, it is interdict to use an image without concentement of those which created it. Out I requested the permission from the COMPANY "the BLACK BOOK" and those which answered me accepted that I use it for WikiPedia... then why to withdraw it?
(per AltaVista - Babel Fish Translation)
Français : Prière de la réponse par Commons:OTRS/fr. Merci !
(per AltaVista - Babel Fish Translation)
English: Please forward the answer per Commons:OTRS. Thanks!
  — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 16:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bonjour à vous, il y a de cela plusieurs semaines, j'ai mis sur le site l'image Loupsolitaire jdr.jpg et a 2 reprises vous l'avez effacé, j'avais pourtant contacté la Compagnie Le Grimoire qui a créé le Jeu de Rôles "Loup Solitaire" pour leur demander l'autorisation d'utiliser la couverture de leur livre sur Wikipédia et il m'ont répondu "OUI" donc c'est ce que j'ai fait... et je vous l'ai même spécifié... Il n'y a personne qui peut dire que je n'ai pas le DROIT puisque la compagnie elle même m'a donné l'autorisation, alors pourquoi me dire que je ne respecte pas les Copyright puisque je les ai ?
-- Blackshield77 —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 17:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Sorry, no time to translate or reply now, I have to run...   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
English: Hello with you, there is that several weeks, I put on the site the image Loupsolitaire jdr.jpg and has 2 recoveries erased it to you, I had however contacted the Company the Black book which created the Role play "Solitary Wolf" to ask for the authorization to them of use the cover of their book on Wikipédia and it answered me "YES" thus it is what I made... and I even specified it to you... _ it there be nobody which can say that I have not the RIGHT since the company it even me have give the authorization, then why me say that I respect not the Copyright since I them have?
(per AltaVista - Babel Fish Translation)
Français : Vous avez reçu de la permission de Compagnie Le Grimoire d'employer cette image. Prière de cette permission par Commons:OTRS/fr. Merci !
(per AltaVista - Babel Fish Translation)
English: You have received from the Compagnie Le Grimoire permission to use that image. Please forward that permission per Commons:OTRS. Thanks!
  — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 10:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Liane de Pougy postcard.jpg edit

Listed for deletion by its own uploader (here). Author of work is not known and is probably impossible to determine. Image is from 1886. I did strike my own comment in the discussion, but that was because I thought I had been proven wrong. I later realized that anything published before 1909 is PD-US and the author has probably been dead 70 years or close to it. Submitted for undeletion as 1) nobody actually opposed the image's being on Commons, and 1) the image is PD-US and probably PD-old or so close to it I can't imagine anyone objecting. -Nard 17:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons has taken the custom of assuming PD for images over 100 years old, unless it can be established that the author has been dead for less than 70 years. I would have kept the image. / Fred J 10:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would be fine to write a clear guideline explaining Commons policy about unknown authors. There is a lot of waste time regarding to this issue. --Juiced lemon 11:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Close.

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

undeletion edit

I hereby assert that I am the creator of this contribution and/or it does not violate any third party rights. I am the author of this image and authorize anyone to use it. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Srcesario (talk • contribs) 17:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might have more luck if you say which contribution you mean. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Close -- Bryan (talk to me)

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

Category:Statues in Hungary edit

Deleted on 2006. I request the undeletion in order to use the standard form “Statues in LOCATION”. --Juiced lemon 17:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because it could be seen as revert-warring, which Juiced lemon has been accused of in the past, so I'd encourage erring on the side of caution there.
I notice that there is presently no clear "standard form" in Category:Statues by country. However, I agree that in is a more suitable preposition, since "something" in "statues of something" would normally imply that "something" is the subject of the statue rather than the place in which it is found. (I am aware that I have created categories which violate this reasoning, but I did so reluctantly to maintain at least locally consistent naming.) —LX (talk, contribs) 21:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This page explains the proposition choice:
type example (incorrect) example (correct) pattern
Location: "London Sculptures". "Sculptures in London". [object] in [location name]
Assuming that statues are sculptures, the conclusion is manifeste. --Juiced lemon 08:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done -- Bryan (talk to me) 18:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

zombo.com edit

Too many want this undeleted. Why is it not so? —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.245.158.242 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There has never been a page named Zombo.com on Wikimedia Commons.[15] —LX (talk, contribs) 21:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think he means [16] Madmax32 02:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the place for that discussion.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 16:34, 8 August 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:Laxsjö kyrka.jpg edit

This image was uploaded by the originator - me. I believe I made that clear in the licensing, but if I didn't, I will try again. Please undelete image. Thank you. Warrakkk 15:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Laxsjö kyrka.jpg has been undeleted. / Fred J 16:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Proper licensing has been applied. Warrakkk 16:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Meck1923.jpg edit

Image:Meck1923.jpg is a map of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, USA from 1923. This image does not fall under any copyrights and is in the public domain and therefore should never have been considered for deletion. I can't seem to access the license that was on the image page before it was deleted (no history tab) but the license was listed and explained properly as to why it was public domain, as well as the original source.

On 19 July 2007 Siebrand stated on my talk page that "There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file." The image page was properly tagged with the correct license and explanation, but Siebrand failed to state what the perceived problem was. Not helpful to say "something is wrong but you'll have to guess what I'm thinking." Since it was already properly tagged with the correct license, nothing could be done to make it 'more right'.

On 8 August 2007 MECU deleted the image. MECU did not explain his reason for the deletion and there was no explanation on the discussion page either. The deletion log states "In category Unknown as of 19 July 2007; no license" which still makes no sense because this image did have a valid license properly and clearly stated on the image page, so why was it listed as having no license when it did?

In addition to this request for undelete, can somebody explain why this public domain image which did have a license and explanation was deleted? Also, I'd can anybody tell me how to see the license it had on it so I can copy and paste it here.

--Fife Club 17:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It did not have a license, only a text saying "This map is in the public domain because it was published without a copyright notice between 1923 and 1977.". A license on Wikimedia Commons refers that box-template with licensing information, such as {{PD-US}}; please see available licenses at Commons:Copyright tags. / Fred J 11:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. So basically it sounds like I am correct that I did give the proper and correct information, stating that it was in the Public Domain and that I gave the correct reason that the reason for this was because it was published without a copyright notice between 1923 and 1977. I could swear it had the correct tag attached too (I still don't know how you found that info) but all the info is still correct. If the wiki tag was missing, shouldn't the people who were so quick to delete the image have just put the {{PD-Pre1978}} tag (which is exactly what was explained) in there since the rationale was all clearly explained? Seems to me that they didn't have to be jerks about what was clearly explained. In any case, this image should obviously be un-deleted since it shouldn't have been deleted in the first place. All it needed was {{PD-Pre1978}} (if it wasn't there) --Fife Club 16:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The tagging is done automatically with a bot, and the deletion is semi-automatic -- that's the way it works around here. I have restored the image now, so you can add the license to it. / Fred J 20:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your help. I'll go put that {{PD-Pre1978}} tag on it now. --Fife Club 22:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Qutb complex edit

User talk:Gryffindor have just moved the contents of Category:Qutb complex, then he deleted it. Nobody requested this move, and the move and the deletion are contrary to our rules (see Qutb complex).

Anyway, a search with the string “Category:Qutb complex” would lead to some result, which is not the case currently. So, I request the undeletion of this category. Commons:Deletion guidelines: Categories are not deleted, but redirected. --Juiced lemon 18:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now redirect it. Cary Bass demandez 19:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Pyongyang Metro edit

This category have been deleted on 2006 for redundancy with Pyongyang Metro. This reason is contrary to Commons policy, so I request the undeletion of Category:Pyongyang Metro. --Juiced lemon 18:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. / Fred J 10:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Juiced lemon 13:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Ipod-mini.png edit

This image was deleted a long time ago, yet the original uploader of the image (me) was never notified of its nomination for deletion by the person who listed it for deletion, nor by the admin who actually deleted the image. The reason for deletion was that it was of "really bad quality," despite the fact that such a claim is dubious, especially since the "better quality replacement" is listed as Image:Ipod mini 2gen silber.JPG – an image that I consider far from "high quality." Lastly, the deletion debate was closed just three days after nom, clearly way too quickly and out line with the guidelines on COM:DEL. This makes me wonder how many other similar, decent-quality images are just swept under the rug. Please restore...thanks! lensovet 07:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this should have never been deleted without discussion, apologies for that. Unfortunately this image was deleted before deleted files were still kept in the archives, and we are thus not able to restore it :( If you still have the original though, you are free to reupload it. -- Bryan (talk to me) 09:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Undelete image: Mohammed kaaba 1315.jpg edit

Please undelete the image Mohammed kaaba 1315.jpg *with* the description that was given it. There was repeated removals of the other similar images because they came (others said) from a non-academic source, such as a website.

So I spent two days tracing that image back to the original source, providing an academically correct citation, reference, description and format.

It would be FAR better to undelete this image, and delete the two other images that exist. In fact, if you undelete this, I will do exactly that.

I really do not want to have to repeat that work over again. And I do not want any more senseless and useless time wasting arguments over it. So please, as a favor undelete this image (with its description).

Thank you

Nodekeeper 16:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done, set up universal replacement. -- Bryan (talk to me) 17:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Stake (lawngame) edit

Why was it deleted? I demand its return!!!! NOW!!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.141.166.45 (talk • contribs) at 18:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give a link please? what precisely was deleted? I tried adding a link to the title, Stake (lawngame)... there is nothing there. In order to help you, you need to explain what was deleted, and why you think it was incorrectly deleted. For best results you should probably couch it as a request, not a demand. I removed your math question, try the Wikipedia reference desk (WP:REFDESK) for the answer to that. ++Lar: t/c 00:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Close. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Musicians from Guatemala edit

While I have just created Category:Musicians from Guatemala, User:Infrogmation deletes it immediatly for this inane reason: Empty.

Category:Musicians of Guatemala is a wrong category name, as you can see in Category:Musicians by country.

Category:Musicians from Guatemala is the only correct category for this subject. User:Infrogmation sabotages destroys my work and disrupts Commons Wikimedia bothers me by trying to prevent obvious moves.

I request the undeletion of this category. --Juiced lemon 13:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Mucha-Maud Adams as Joan of Arc-1909.jpg edit

This is an advertisement poster which was published in the United States in 1909. The description page stated that it had been published in the United States in 1909. The artist, Alfons Mucha, died in 1939, and did nearly all of his work in France, so his work is nearly all copyrighted. However, it's not all copyrighted, since he did a tour of the U.S. in the 1906-1910 period, where he made a poster for Maud Adams playing Joan of Arc. This rationale was explained on the image page, but it still got speedy-deleted by Polarlys. I request that the file be undeleted. grendel|khan 14:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

restored --Polarlys 11:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion was false. Country of origin according the Berne Convention and our rules is France. Mucha's works are protected in the European Union 70 years pma and we should respect this. WMF can be sued in France, Germany, Belgium etc. etc. etc. --Historiograf 21:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Habzonethinkquest.gif edit

Image has been deleted as non-commercial; contents of en:Image talk:Habzonethinkquest.gif (copied e-mail messages) indicate that after the copyright holder has been informed that we don't accept non-commercial images, he agreed to GFDL-license it. Image is used as a source for Image:Habitable zone.svg and related images, see page links. - MikeRosoft 09:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no explicit GFDL grant, only a reference to "our previous approval", which was for non-commercial use only (with no evidence that they've read, understood, and agreed to the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License) and an approval from the original author for "use on Wikipedia". It's not at all clear to me who is the copyright holder, and this isn't asserted anywhere either. (The original author's permission may be irrelevant if this was a work for hire.) To avoid such problems, please use Commons:Email templates whenever requesting permission. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Close. -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Maps of Flemish Brabant edit

Deleted on 2006. I request the undeletion in order to use the standard form for “Maps of Flemish Brabant”. --Juiced lemon 16:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:LocationTaiwan.png edit

This was one of the (very) many location maps created by w:User:Vardion. It was transwiki'd from en.wp (w:Image:LocationTaiwan.png), but deleted here because it had insufficient copyright information (all it said was GFDL). The uploader has since stated on the en.wp image page that he is the author, so can we now please undelete this? Hopefully CommonsDelinker didn't remove all uses of the image. I imagine it was used on most projects and languages... 63.231.150.107 06:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done —LX (talk, contribs) 06:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Close. -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Hk1960.jpg edit

The image Image:Hk1960.jpg, which was deleted recently, is available from iBiblio (source). And the iBiblio is shown as "a collaboration of the center for the public domain and unc-ch" at the top right hand corner of the iBiblio homepage, and from this page, the original image was contributed by "Boon Swee Low".

The discussion from Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Hk1960.jpg was mentioned the image is not from PD, and the deletion statement was contradicted as iBiblio is from the Public Domain, thus the deletion request for the image is invalid.

I think that the {{PD-ineligible}} template can be applied as the source is from the public domain. Please undelete the image as the statement stated above. Shinjiman 12:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I say  Oppose because I am not sure it works that way. Other ibiblio sites such as footy state clearly that their material is copyright protected. I found out that the "Center for the public domain" actually refers to the website http://www.centerforthepublicdomain.org/ and not necessarily means their material is public domain. Finally, I do not see it stated that Boon Swee Low agreed to release his photos into the public domain, which he must explicitly agree to. / Fred J 00:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:RiB-BrokenStyle.png edit

As of July 11, 2007, George Gershwin has now been deceased 70 years, and this image is therefore {{PD-Old}}. I was the original nominator for deletion. Cheers, and sorry for the extra work (being that I nominated it for deletion so close to its release to the public domain, I probably should just have ignored it). --Storkk 08:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - we have to wait until 1 January 2008.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Maps of the Roman Empire edit

This category has been deleted on April, 2007 for the reason : content was: '{{badname|:Category:Maps of Ancient Rome}}'.

Category:Maps of the Roman Empire was perfectly named. There is an article Roman Empire in the English Wikipedia, and we have obviously a lot of maps of the Roman Empire to categorize, and this category: Category:Locator maps of provinces of the Roman Empire.

Therefore, I request the undeletion of this category. --Juiced lemon 00:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done per this log.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Cosmology edit

This category wa deleted on December 2004, for the reason: Category redesign; listed on deletion candidates for 9 days without objection.. The English Wikipedia has both the article Cosmology and Category:Cosmology, so I think that Category:Cosmology will be useful in Commons, and I request its undeletion. --Juiced lemon 14:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done - seems uncontroversial (though I'm sure someone will tell me if I'm wrong!) --Herby talk thyme 16:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Buddhas of Bamyan edit

A robot have just deleted this category after a surreal move to Category:Cultural landscape and archaeological remains of the Bamiyan Province. This category was named according to Buddhas of Bamyan, and there was no reason, nor request to move or delete it. Therefore, please restore this category in order to cancel this move. --Juiced lemon 19:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request still current, JL? Siebrand 08:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The request is still current, because I think that the title of the English Wikipedia will remain Buddhas of Bamyan. However, as this is a complex transliteration issue, I wish to create at the moment a redirection to Category:Buddhas of Bamiyan. I go to open a discussion in the village pump about a issue which is related to this request. --Juiced lemon 10:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undeleted. -- Bryan (talk to me) 13:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

Jacqueline Pang Ching edit

I created a biography about a popular Hongkong Dj, and it was deleted recently. the page name was "Jacqueline K.M. Pang. I cannot find it now. Was it reasonable that it be deleted, and may I know why, Please? There were valid referrences and links to prove my data. I request it be restored, please... My email is: marioh3808@i-cable.com. —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.77.15.68 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. There has never been a page named Jacqueline K.M. Pang on Wikimedia Commons[17] and biographic and other encyclopædic articles are outside Commons:Project scope anyway. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely right about that page name not existing. However, the page named "Jacqueline Pang" did exist. If the SCOPE is not correct, where would it be more appropriately placed? Being new to the system, I didn't know to go to the TALK page in my account Max3808 to seek messages before it was deleted. There was no discussion, nor was there a suggestion to me to withdraw the article, which would be much less offensive than just making it disappear. I did allow my email contact to be revealed, but was it used to warn me? NO. This is not conducive to encouraging better contributions, and although it seems impersonal, I still feel wounded. One really tries to contribute, but gets shot down mercilessly, and by whom? not a moderator, but a very small reader, who instead of contributing, labels others' articles for speedies! And that's a very destructive attitude. It seems this is condoned by Wiki.(marioh3808@i-cable.com) —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.254.96.29 (talk • contribs) 06:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the substance of your request, that page Jacqueline Pang only existed on English Wikipedia, where we do not have jurisdiction. It was deleted for reason a7 per this log, which a7 means "Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content. An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject." per w:Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#a7. So the deleter MZMcBride agreed with the tagger Koavf that the subject of the article (possibly a co-host of the 21st Hong Kong Film Awards) was not notable, so unremarkable as to not even merit a controversy. I suggest that you see Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted? for futher info on trying to make a permanent English Wikipedia article about that person.
Regarding your other comments, you appear to have missed the annoying orange banner on every single Wikipedia page that said that you had a message waiting (or maybe that feature doesn't exist any more). Also, Koavf has contributed plenty (he currently has 22323 English Wikipedia mainspace contributions under his belt, as compared with your 0). In addition, please read {{Be civil}}. Thank you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Close. This is Commons. -- Bryan (talk to me) 13:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

File: Rokushiki edit

The file was not inaccurate to the anime. Though it was not of any true importance describing the anime itself, it did accurately define the given title it was describing. It shouldn't have been deleted due to its accuracy and its information ready by curious readers like myself who would want to know the information regarding the title of the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.9.208.211 (talk • contribs) at 14:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what file and article? Are you writing of w:Rokushiki techniques, deleted as a result of the discussion w:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rokushiki techniques? If so, please be aware that we Commons users have no jurisdiction over w:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Close. -- Bryan (talk to me) 13:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Mucha window in St Vitus.JPG edit

  • Deleted anyway, despite the fact that consensus was Czech FoP applies indoors. FoP laws differ from country to country. Some of them do in fact apply indoors. -Nard 10:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, it was a consensus? I still waited for a prove of this assertion. Please inform the deleting admin about this request. --Polarlys 11:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done - the deleting admin has been informed.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 11:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did not see nay consensus. In contrast, it was said very clearly that Czech FOP does NOT apply indoors. See commentary of Polarlys at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Mucha window in St Vitus.JPG. --ALE! ¿…? 15:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK nor I, You or Polarlys is familiar with Czech copyright law... so lets wait for Czechs opinion. Radomil talk 16:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Public places ("veřejná prostranství"), publicly accessible places ("veřejně přístupná místa") and open-air places ("otevřená prostranství") are three different things.

Look at analyse of finding of Czech Constitutional Court [18]. Court claims, that public places are naturally publicly accessible practically at any time, but public accessibility of publicly accessible places depends on free will of its owner. For example passage-yard ("dvorní trakt"), water area ("vodní plocha") and playground ("hřiště") are only publicly accessible places and are not public places.

There is no indoor place in examples of public places in law, but it does not imply, that indoor place generally cannot be a public place. An indoor place IMHO can became public place for example if there is a land charge to allow access to anyone at every time (and therefore its public accessibility does not depend on the will of its owner).

St. Vitus Cathedral in Prague is a publicly accessible place, but it is not a public place. Therefore FoP cannot be aplied and the image should be deleted (and undeleted at the beginning of 2010). --RuM 22:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2007-08&oldid=303777877"