Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2009-06

< Commons:Undeletion requests‎ | Archive

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

File:Dr.PlacikTummyTuck.JPG edit

We have received an OTRS email from bodysculptor.com at Ticket:2009052710063366 confirming this is released under GFDL and CC-BY-SA-3.0. Can someone please undelete it? Stifle (talk) 20:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done OTRS recieved --MGA73 (talk) 21:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Andrew Norriss.jpg edit

Sorry my fault that my photo of Andrew Norriss was deleted.

I am Andrew's wife, anorrissbooks.wordpress.com is my website, I took the photo, it is mine but I got the uploading info wrong as this is the first time I have tried to do it and I forgot about it being on my website already.

sorry for the trouble. Your site is wonderful and so easy to use - when I get it right!

Have a great day where ever you are. Jane Norriss —Preceding unsigned comment added by Topsyjane (talk • contribs) 19:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you either put something on the website saying that the photo has been freely licensed or send a declaration of consent to OTRS (and let us know when you've sent it)? That way we can be (reasonably) sure that the photo really belongs to you. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Undeleted, request for OTRS confirmation e-mailed to website owner. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 10:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ResolvedPermission has been confirmed via OTRS. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nixon edit

File:Richard Nixon - Official Portrait (1969).jpeg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) was deleted without a DR - an administrator should not use his powers that way. Please undelete, and have a normal discussion. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The image clearly has a copyright notice in the lower right corner (specifically by Philippe Halsman, who died in 1979). Since it was made in 1969 and the author died in 1979, that copyright is still 100% valid and it is a violation of Commons policy to have it here. Remember, not all images from the Defense Imagery site are public domain, only those by members of the armed services as a part of their official duties. See speedy deletion policy. Not every image deletion is discussed. --Tom (talk - email) 15:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is clearly a case that would merit discussion. Image title says "Official portrait", you say it came from a government site. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Support undeletion. If someone has reasons to believe a speedy deleted image could be free, then udeleting and opening a DR is the best way to go. It allows everyone to see the image and participate in the discussion (not just admins) and clarifies the situation for everyone. –Tryphon☂ 15:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We can see the image here: defenseimagery.mil VIRIN HA-SC-99-00372. The image appears to be a derivative work of a picture located in former Fitzsimons Army Medical Center. Did the photographer sell the image to the AMC or gave it as a gift or is it realy a WFH for the US Gov? Dont know. --Martin H. (talk) 15:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like work for hire for the US government. According to this link, "After Mr Nixon had won the elections, Halsman got a phone call from the Republican headquarters at the Hotel Pierre in NY stating "Mr Halsman a great honour has been bestowed on you. You have been selected to make the official portrait of the President". On 9th January 1969, photographer Philippe Halsman started the session, the President chose 3 images. Finally the White House made a black and white conversion of the colour, and sent it out to the US Embassies around the world." /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pieter, the link you provided disputes your own claim since it says "Copyright Philippe Halsman". Just because the U.S. Government contracted out for the portrait does not mean they assumed all the rights to the image. "(c) Halsman" is clearly written in the lower right corner. In 1979 plus ~70 years, this image will be suitable for the Commons. In the meantime, it should remain deleted. --Tom (talk - email) 17:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose valid deletion, valid rationale. --Herby talk thyme 17:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Evidence above indicates this was not a work for hire by an employee of the United States government, but a third-party contract; such works are not in the public domain. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Support undeletion. Obviously a work for hire. This is a rehash of every argument about whether portraits are PD or not. Listed on a goverment website as, "Official photo of President Richard Nixon." Evrik (talk) 14:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Being a "work for hire" and being copyrighted are not mutually exclusive. Being a "work for hire" merely means the U.S. government, not Philippe Halsman, holds the copyright. U.S. government works are only PD if the government is the author (not the same as being the copyright holder). The statute (USC 17 § 105) explicitly allows the government to hold transferred rights (i.e. rights are not released to PD because of a relationship with the government). Эlcobbola talk 15:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it is a "work for hire" of the government, then no, that would not be copyrighted -- the government is considered the author. The copyright would need to be transferred, i.e. owned by someone else first. With commissions or grants, that is often the case (or there is no transfer, and the government just uses the work). From the legislative notes: The bill deliberately avoids making any sort of outright, unqualified prohibition against copyright in works prepared under Government contract or grant. There may well be cases where it would be in the public interest to deny copyright in the writings generated by Government research contracts and the like; it can be assumed that, where a Government agency commissions a work for its own use merely as an alternative to having one of its own employees prepare the work, the right to secure a private copyright would be withheld. However, there are almost certainly many other cases where the denial of copyright protection would be unfair or would hamper the production and publication of important works. Where, under the particular circumstances, Congress or the agency involved finds that the need to have a work freely available outweighs the need of the private author to secure copyright, the problem can be dealt with by specific legislation, agency regulations, or contractual restrictions. I think I've read that the government ensures it has the rights to presidential portraits, but 1) that may not have been the case in 1969, and 2) that may just refer to the painted portraits done at the end of presidential terms, not necessarily these other photographed ones. What was the exact source URL for the image? Corbis naturally claims they own the copyright[1]; but does mention it was made Feb 11, 1969, which was after the inauguration. It probably should not have been speedied, as official government portraits (meant to be used widely by the federal government) are never obvious copyvios, but it is probably worthy of a discussion. Halsman presumably used a copyright notice for a reason (which would preclude it being a direct work for hire and indicates he may have retained copyright, but it could have been transferred too, meaning the government would have every right to place it in the public domain). Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Support as per above. has anybody tried checking the nixon presidential library's records on this? Lx 121 (talk) 08:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I looked. It's not locatable by search or online in the "Virtual Library"; instead, they have a different portrait called "Formal portrait of President Nixon; Date: July 8, 1971; Roll-Frame number: WHPO C6779-04" at http://nixon.archives.gov/virtuallibrary/gallery12.php - presumably we could use that for almost all Nixon purposes. --GRuban (talk) 15:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment TinEye says the Encyclopedia Britannica uses the same image here http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/416465/Richard-M-Nixon, and credits it to Department of Defense. --GRuban (talk) 17:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The source is a Dept of Defense website, where they say the photographer is unknown, despite being written on the photograph. Corbis isn't much better (and they crop out the signature some). It definitely wasn't authored by a U.S. government employee; the question (and it's a hard one) is what was the contract. Prior to 1978, copyright often followed the commissioning party (especially if they paid) unless there was a specific contract which specified otherwise. That is different than work for hire, but it still seems odd to have the copyright on the image in that case. It is somewhat hard to imagine the government not having the copyright to an official portrait, but it's certainly possible (they would just have a wide-ranging license). The magnumphotos info also means the Corbis date is wrong (as is the date on the actual magnumphotos page). I didn't find this on the nixon library site or archives.gov, but they still have lots of material which is not online (including much of the White House Photographer's collection). Dunno, really. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. See COM:PRP. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Copyright status of attributed images on National Weather Service servers edit

This is an undeletion request but also a request for comment on a large body of images. I just noticed that this file had been removed. We have run into this problem before with pictures found on National Weather Service web servers, where a picture will be labeled "Courtesy of" a certain party. Per NWS copyright disclaimer: The information on government servers are in the public domain, unless specifically annotated otherwise. IMHO (and that of a few other Wikipedia editors) this was taken to mean only images with a "©" symbol or other wording suggesting that rights are still reserved by the author. Under this interpretation, images labeled "Courtesy of" are still in the Public Domain. I'd like to see what the Commons folk think on this matter, since i think there are other pictures in commons under these same circumstances.-Runningonbrains 13:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They can't be tagged PD-USGov, since they are not works of the U.S. government. I'm not sure how careful the NWS is about such submissions, but looking at one station's image upload policy here and here, it does appear that the NWS makes clear to photo submitters that they are placing their images in the public domain (meaning the PD-author tag should be used, unless we create a special tag for this situation). There is a similar note at another upload site here... and actually here and here too. Based on that, it does seem likely that they are pretty careful about the difference, and that your assumption above is correct. So...  Support undeletion of this one, I guess. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pictures found on NWS web servers labeled "Courtesy of" a certain party are acceptable and should be tagged with a dedicated PD template that summarizes/references this argument. Template:PD-only-source, perhaps? --Elvey (talk) 19:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If no one objects, I'll start on that template now. I was thinking {{PD-NWS}}, is that suitable? -Runningonbrains 17:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PD-NWS-submission may be better. The NWS is not the author in this case. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have worded the text so it applies to both NWS-created images and those submitted by others. If you really think it's an issue, you can feel free to move it yourself, I won't object. I just think it's fine where it is.-Runningonbrains 17:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone please undelete this? It has been more than two weeks, and we now have a correct copyright tag to apply. -Runningonbrains 21:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Small world--I just saw your comment below mine on MichaelMaggs' talk page, Runningonbrains (I was the one who listed this file for deletion). The discussion over this file has been enlightening; the NWS seems to have more explicit copyright policies for non-government-created photos hosted on their website compared to some other agencies (for instance, the Department of Energy). - Gump Stump (talk) 20:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. A rather surprising result, but the reasoning does look sound. The new template should help for the future, but it could perhaps do with some more explanatory text. I will see if I can do something on that this evening. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Sem título1.gif edit

This image was deleted per no realistical use. But it's being used on on a user talk page that is a Dark Humor Page from Wiki-pt. And the Project Scope says on the File in use in another Wikimedia project: "A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose, as is a file in use for some operational reason such as within a template or the like. Such a file is not liable to deletion simply because it may be of poor quality: if it is in use, that is enough.

An otherwise non-educational file does not acquire educational purpose solely because it is in use on a user page (the "User:" namespace) of another project, but by custom the uploading of small numbers of images (eg of yourself) for use on a personal user page of another project is allowed."

Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 02:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's one thing having a personal image (eg of yourself) on your userpage, it's quite another to use Commons to host an image for what is effectively a personal encyclopedia entry in user space. Sorry. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Eg for yourself" here it's just an example of what kind of user's images are allowed not a rule. Or else it will be clearly said: but by custom the uploading of small numbers of images of yourself for use on a personal user page of another project is allowed. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 12:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Waiting...Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 01:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please give a link to the page where the image was used? Samulili (talk) 05:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the lateness. The image was used on Usuário Discussão:MachoCarioca/Esculhambares.Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 00:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the page, I have no other choice but to agree with MichaelMaggs. That is not the kind of thing Commons is for. You should get yourself a homepage somewhere else, like Geocities. Samulili (talk) 06:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well,the page is not miine. Actually it's public lke everything else on a Wikimedia's project. It's ahumor page like many Wikipedias have. Surely we will host this kinda of image in our project, but Wiki-pt cannot upload anything in it. And we have this Commons policy that allows the uploading of any kinda of file as long as its useful, and this image was. I think we should get rid of this policy, I see there is no use for it. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 16:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I already notice you guy don't want and won't bring it back so you guys can close this request. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 01:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Undeletion requested edit

The pictures in “Category:The wooden church in Pruneni, Cluj” are of great value and much work has been done to have these pictures on Romanian wikipedia. Someone transferred all of them in Commons and now they are all deleted! Great shame to let delet them like this.

Hi. Please provide links so that we know what we're talking about. "Files that were once in a category before deletion" is not something that can help us to find them, I think. Do you have filenames? --Eusebius (talk) 19:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing specified to undelete. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Undeletion request for the Solar Net Logo.png edit

Hello,

Solar Net International is an international NGO and it works for intercultural communication. My name is Kenan Kaya and I am one of the staff members of this organization. You can see me on this page :[2] And on this page you can find more information about the organization :[3]

I created a Wkipedia article in Turkish [4] and added the Solar Net logo also. But every time I upload it , it's being deleted with the claim of copyright violation. As you see this is obviously not a violation of copyright.

I'll upload it again and ask you not to delete it.

Regards, Kenan Kaya — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenankaya (talk • contribs) 10:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The image was rightfully deleted as there is no permission from the company itself (CEO or someone from a high management level within the company). Please send an OTRS request and the image maybe restored. Bidgee (talk) 11:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) No, please don't upload it again, it would be deleted again. Instead, send an authorization e-mail (standard text here) to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, and if the permission is valid your file will be restored. --Eusebius (talk) 11:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now awaiting OTRS. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Deleted File:Vexed_ebookcover.jpg edit

Dear Wikipedia Commons:

Please undelete the file Vexed_ebookcover.jpg. The stated reason for deletion was copyright violation. How come? I designed that page and I am the co-publisher of the e-book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warpotato (talk • contribs)

Undeleted, request for OTRS confirmation sent by e-mail. By the way, while it's certainly up to you choose which version of your work to upload, I'd like to respectfully suggest that a slightly larger image might be more useful. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done by Ilmari Karonen


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

File:Lysette.jpg edit

Since when do we need permission from a sculptor to post photographs of his sculpture, especially if is released for casting and manufacture to a mass market, and the photographed model is painted by the photographer, who is the uploader of the photo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MamaGeek (talk • contribs) 23:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also Commons talk:Licensing#Photo of manufactured pewter figure. Let's try to keep discussion in one place, please. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being discussed at Commons talk:Licensing#Photo of manufactured pewter figure. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Cięcina herb.jpg edit

Requesting undeletion coat of arms of Cięcina. Apparently has no legislation on copyright. This image is an official symbol of village Cięcina. Grzegorz30 04.06.2009, 11.35(UTC)

Not yet deleted, but no source, wrong license. Yann (talk) 21:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to undelete. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. Adambro deleted a legitimate derivative work based on a sole person's opinion and ignoring every possible rule of the Commons. Drork (talk) 10:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

link? --Eusebius (talk) 10:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And what does this have to do with an undeletion request? This page is for requesting file(s) to be undeleted not about other editors or Admins'. Bidgee (talk) 10:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here you are:
I am reminding you that these political cartoons were kept on the principle that the Commons is not censored. The author allowed modifications. The derivative works used the author's own permission to protest against his attitude, and included a disclaimer that these are not the author's views. Drork (talk) 10:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done It's pretty simple. We allow works which have a possible educational/encyclopaedic use. Cartoons by Latuff - a notable cartoonist - are in scope because they could be used in an article on Latuff, the middle east conflict, etc. Your derivative works are not educational - there is no possible encyclopaedic use for them, they are simply an IDON'TLIKEIT image. Thus we delete them. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Andy Hug.png edit

http://www.andyhug.com/content_detail,54,r,_Ez.html So what? I modified this, I've told you. My dear friend, I've spent bloody three hours to upload this picture, and now you deleted it for obscure reason. Please undelete and put it to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Hug — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgy SummumBonum (talk • contribs) 02:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Undeletion requests edit

Please upload VIVID VOLUNTEER TRAINING 5.JPG image again.

Regards, Vikas Vivid Techno. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.177.2.104 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please confirm your copyright ownership via COM:OTRS. Thanks, →Nagy 12:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Awaiting OTRS now.


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

User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands/requests edit

This is not a file, but a talk page. This deletion is not legitimate. It should be discussed before the community. It should not be deleted without a proper deletion request on the deletion request's page. Teofilo (talk) 16:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize there's only one deleted revision, and it's a redirect, right? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, the page was not deleted, only moved. The target of the move is given in the deletion log. The target should be moved to a better name by the way. --Martin H. (talk) 23:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Nintendo.svg edit

This Nintendo's logo was deleted as copyvio being simple enough and within the scope because it does not meet the threshold of originality.Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 12:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I forward this -- penubag  (talk) 02:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Undeleted by AVRS. –Tryphon☂ 05:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:PikiWiki Israel 2219 Election 2009 night - Kadima Party ערב בחירות 2009 - מטה קדימה.jpg edit

Can u please undelete this image. It has come to my attention that Pieter Kuiper‎ have no understanding what so ever of Israeli Law. And as the picture was taken by a spokeperson of the Party - i do not think there is copyvio. I do not say that it is OK - but I would like to see it and comment having seen Pieter Kuiper complete and utter‎ lack of understanding. Thanks in advance, and I would be truely happy to answer any questions in the future with regards to copyright and FOP in Israel. Deror avi (talk) 08:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should be able to see the image on pikiwiki. Cannot you find your way around there? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Image was only in the cache on my computer at home; I had no idea that the pikiwiki project used the same server. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


For the convenience of Deror avi, since the link to Pikiwiki provided by Pieter Kuiper does not work, here is a version of the image with the copyright violation edited out. Rama (talk) 10:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I found the link via this search (works on my Macintosh), and I am a bit surprised that the images are on wikimedia servers. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Piki wiki images are on wikimedia severs because it is an official project of the foundation. Deror avi (talk) 14:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since when is this a project from the Wikimedia Foundation? Huib talk 17:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thaks. there is no problem with the original image. This is not copyvio according to Section 22 of the Law. (Had it been just the poster and not the whole room - then it would have been different). Deror avi (talk) 11:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The poster does not fall under FOP, right? This means it must comply with our De Minimis guidelines to keep it and I'm afraid it doesn't. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 16:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After a IRC conversation with Cary it came to my mind that I could have made the wrong decission. therefor I am undeleting the image. Huib talk 20:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no problem with this image. I fully trust what Deror Avi has to say about it. Neither the PikiWiki project nor contributors like Deror Avi have any desire to fill our servers with copyright violations. It seems that we are splitting hairs here, and it appears that a lot of antipathy is being misdirected at the PikiWiki project. The people who are following these images and persistently nominating them for deletion based on remote possibilities need to reexamine their motivations and try to work on supporting and building the Commons in accordance with our Mission. --Bastique demandez 20:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if someone used this on the cover of a book, and the photographer/copyrightowner would send a bill, would you advise that person to pay up or would your counsel be to let it go to court? Shall we add this to COM:DM as a good example of what is permissible on commons? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Undeleted & let's try to reduce these ridiculously spurious deletions in the future?  — Mike.lifeguard 21:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Alan dershowitz by Latuff.jpg edit

This image was requested for deletion once and was voted for keep. But the discussion was hold before the Board resolution about Biographies of Living People was issued, which asks all wikimedia projects to "Ensuring that projects in all languages that describe living people have policies in place calling for special attention to the principles of neutrality and verifiability in those articles" and "Taking human dignity and respect for personal privacy into account when adding or removing information, especially in articles of ephemeral or marginal interest". The content of this image is not neutral, not verifiable and certainly doesn't take human dignity into account. The last request discussion didn't considered these issues and so I think it is deem to reopen the request again.--Wing (talk) 10:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We went though this more than just once. Anyway, the cartoon is not an article. It is verified that Latuff made it. The cartoon was discussed in the press by Dershowitz. And the Dershowitz–Finkelstein feud is not ephemeral. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The cartoon is a comment of a living person, so it certainly fit into the scope of the board resolution. The depicted scene is not verified, it is very likely not neutral. A lot of people, who voted the last time for keeping, agree that the picture is a personal attact on a living people. They voted for keeping because there were no board resolution on this issue at that time. The situation had changed. So a rejudgement is necessary.--Wing (talk) 10:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the situation has changed - it's still work by a notable artist and in fact a notable picture that is freely licenced. Sidenote: How can you have an undeletion request for a file which was not deleted? -mattbuck (Talk) 10:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry, that was my fault - I sent Wing here. But of course this isn't the right place. back to Commons:Village pump#Request for a reopen of deletion. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to undelete; see Commons:Village pump#Request for a reopen of deletion. –Tryphon☂ 09:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Why? edit

Why the article User:Othanwiki2009 is always a candidate for deletion? It has always been deleted but I don't know the reason. Please undelete that user page. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Othanwiki2009 (talk • contribs) 17:21 08/06/09 UTC (UTC)

This user was listed by Herby as a sock of SS525. This request is user's only edit (account created 25th april). -mattbuck (Talk) 18:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, the reason for deletion is available (as always) in the deletion log. I see no reason to revert this action. –Tryphon☂ 09:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Trump SoHo Collapse 5.JPG edit

Hello... I'm the creator of this image. If it is undeleted I can add the appropriate permissions information. - Borofkin (talk) 04:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted. Please add the license. Thanks, Yann (talk) 20:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

please upload File:Fareedzakariagps.jpg edit

I work for Fareed Zakaria and GPS and was given permission to post the image to our Wikipedia page. Please let me know why I am unable to do so.

Thank you,

Madeleine Rowe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fzakariaintern (talk • contribs)

If you are the copyright holder of this image, you should send an email to OTRS, giving permission for anyone to use it and stating a specific license. You should also have a look at our project scope; this image is mainly promotional, and might be deleted on that basis. A simple portrait of Fareed Zakaria (without the surrounding promotional content) would be much more appropriate. –Tryphon☂ 03:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, OTRS permission required. –Tryphon☂ 08:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Carol Jago's Portrait Picture - I took it and its the property of our family - please consider edit

The file File:Bird101lr48.jpg was recenly deleted. I would like to upload this for use on Carol Jago's wikipedia page. I took the picture, and it is property of Carol Jago, my mother. I am setting up her wikipedia page and would like to use the photo (which is the photo she uses for her books, website, etc) on the page. She has given me permission to use it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 850Wolly (talk • contribs)

Please send an email to OTRS with the permissions and licensing information (Must be under a free-use license). Bidgee (talk) 15:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, until OTRS permission is received. –Tryphon☂ 05:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

undelete Chantal Kreviazuk/Jackson Triggs photo edit

FYI I was the one who took this photo - the URL referenced with the copyright violation is in fact my pBase photo gallery. As the copyright holder, I am allowing this specific photo to be used freely under any and all conditions set forth by Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tezster (talk • contribs) 04:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've tentatively undeleted the image and e-mailed the owner of the gallery with a request to confirm permission via OTRS. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 05:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done, valid OTRS ticket. –Tryphon☂ 05:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Alan dershowitz by Latuff.jpg edit

File:Alan dershowitz by Latuff.jpg per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alan dershowitz by Latuff.jpg reopen. There was a vigorous ongoing discussion about the image, which had only been listed since 11:20, 7 June 2009. User:Huib closed off the request and deleted at 20:50, 11 June 2009. Discussion was still ongoing; indeed there were more than 20 additional comments earlier the same day, raising various interesting views and issues. As can be seen from the deletion request, there were multiple votes on both sides with no clear consensus arrived at at the time the ongoing vote and discussion was suddenly closed. I request undeletion as part of a reopening of this important discussion. I consider this deletion request of more than usual importance as it may potentially set precidents for other image usage and deletions, and thus deserves full discussion. -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bad call Abigor / Huib / Sterkebak. I reopend the deletion request. This deletion was premature. Multichill (talk) 01:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bad call by you two. If you guy's don't agree with my discussion it doesn't mean you can just undelete it and start a wheelwar. Huib talk 04:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ownership of decision? --Dezidor (talk) 09:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Undeleted. Abigor, a wheel war would be reverting without due process. Here, I see an undeletion request with good reasoning that was granted, not wheel warring. Your deletion was obviously premature, and it should have been undone. Now it has been, and discussion may continue.  — Mike.lifeguard 13:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Struktur cdu.svg edit

This was my own work! 9002redrum (talk) 11:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As this diagram is accessible through the given source link, we need a permission through OTRS as well. --AFBorchert (talk) 12:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Restored. In this certain case the diagram in the pdf was used as a guideline for this structure. Therefore no copyvio. I have restored this file. --High Contrast (talk) 13:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restored by High Contrast. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2009-06&oldid=113105328"