Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2013-09

< Commons:Undeletion requests‎ | Archive

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

Files by User:Kiario12 edit

Hello, it seems to me that while deleting so many files, someone missed this. The license is correct. I myself took the pictres above. So, photographer is known, Kiario12 (me) and that is the main reason that I ask for the undeletion.

Ok, I undeleted them. Thank's for letting us know. You do agree with the rest of the deletions? --Dschwen (talk) 02:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:Giannis Voglis actor in Ierapetra 2010.png is out of scope. It's blurry, it's low res, it's hard to tell what is happening, and it has no real educational value as far as I can see. File:Stavros Arnaoutakis.jpg is borederline passable, and could be kept if we have no other images depicting this presumably notable individual -FASTILY 02:52, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Um... I do believe they were in use on a wiki, meaning they are (and will remain) automatically in scope. They were in use in their respective articles on el-wiki (en-wiki has articles on both as well, though the images were not used there.) Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I did not look at the delinker log -FASTILY 19:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done The files have been restored. INeverCry 18:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:ICPD Launch 11th March 1999.jpg edit

Still waiting undeletion... Another commissioned picture - content provided as-is by the National Library of Ireland and Irish Newspapers Rights images move to common right after 3 years - this was 19 years ago, thus legally used with permission - original rights (not claimed here have been requested of photographer), so can get original photograph as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AspieNo1 (talk • contribs) 09:36, 30 August 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Is there a particular reason why you think today's response is going to be any different from yesterday? If you've followed the procedure at Commons:OTRS, a volunteer will process your e-mail when its turn comes. If (and only if) they are satisfied that all necessary information has been provided, the files will be undeleted. The current processing time, as listed at Commons:OTRS, is about sixteen days. It has not yet been sixteen days since yesterday, so you need to have some patience. While you're "still waiting", you might wish to learn how to sign your entries. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that the volunteers at OTRS sometimes have a backlog that runs into weeks. Rather than waste our time with snarky comments, you might think about helping the project. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done OTRS permission needed. INeverCry 19:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. Any news on these undeletes as have shown where contents and what they have with copyright and numerous declarations ... any idea what the hold-up is. Just says not done? AspieNo1 (talk) 20:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC) ID OTRS documentation not ye completed, any idea where and when in backlog they are and when will be complete - will I and right-holders (who have now shown permissions by e-mail to permissions e-mail address) all be informed, or what - will these undelete requests then be proceeded with or will have to once again be reapplied for? AspieNo1 (talk) 20:20, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If too much information and details sent in and cannot see anything allowed within Irish, European and International Copyright law, feel free to revert to Rights-holders who made submissions to confirm with Irish Creative Commons Licences ... have copies of their submissions they sent me as update on talk page. Here to help, if needed, give us a message - we are more then willing to show access to non-list / hidden pages) where content is located on-line and from which used to load onto numerous media sites and attached to articles. [these catalogues are not listed for general public and locations may not be published - not all the contents have been released on social media or deemed relevant to the articles in question.

( All pictures are subject to Irish Creative Commons License, with rights and origin attributed. ) AspieNo1 (talk) 20:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC) AspieNo1 (talk) 20:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC) Question arises: how to obtain or seek a declaration to be completed from right given of the state and now administered from Irish National Library; Damon also has in his generations albums inherited pictures from his grand, great and great-grandparents, some from around 1890's to first world-war - the subjects and parties of the pictures were died in the 1930's and early 40's (thus over 70 years ago) - would he need to state his rights as person who inherited the rights from family, or get notarised declaration of kin and ownership - due to his genealogical research he has his great-grandparents, and marriage certificates and death certificates should not be a problem - many of these were included in his book "The Last of the White Brigade, Vernay Family Heroes 1830-1993", and is thus in his copyright under that derivation?[reply]

Nobiltà nera edit

Chiedo il ripristino del file seguente: File:Camerierisegreti.jpg La fotografia ha più di 70 anni: io riconosco i personaggi. Domenico Serlupi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Domenico Serlupi (talk • contribs)

 Not done70 years after the death of the author, not 70 years after taking image. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 18:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Comenia.png edit

Typeface specimen deleted based on the uploader not being the rights holder. However, per Commons:Licensing#Fonts, "[t]he raster rendering of a font (or typeface) is not subject to copyright in the U.S." Requesting undelete to use image in cs:Comenia Script. Marek BLAHUŠ (talk) 23:16, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done -FASTILY 02:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

Nephron function bg.jpeg edit

The schematic is not the same as previously published and only borrows concepts that can be found in ANY physiology textbook. It is needed in the Bulgarian WIKI. If you can translate the English file and customize it for the BG wiki please be my guest. It is NOT an original picture and it is not their property. The file i posted was done from scratch. Aceofhearts1968 (talk) 04:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and re-upload it then. Make sure to note somewhere in the description that you are the sole creator of the file and list any sources you used. -FASTILY 02:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sander Jan Klerk Dutch Actor on filmset.JPG edit

Dear sir/madam,

I would like to make an undeletion request for this photograph. I am the photographer and own the rights of this photo. The actor knows this and fully agrees. He is allowed to use the photograph for social media as well.

Thanks, Sven

Sven Anderson (talk) 06:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 02:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:SanderJanKlerkIMG 8497.JPG edit

I confirm that I am the only owner of this picture. The rights belong to me and I would like to share it on Wikimedia commons. I have asked the blogger to delete his version of my work to avoid confusion. Thanks! Steef1988 (talk) 14:18, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 02:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Actor Sander Jan Klerk world war 2 uniform.jpg edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I took the picture and I own the rights. Marky 198 (talk) 14:28, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 02:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:OtokarCobraBorderDuty.JPG edit

File was deleted as a copyvio under the rationale that the OTRS permission ticket #2012071110005537. This ticket gave us the {{Attribution-TRGov-Military}} tag which reands: "Turkish Armed Forces allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that the copyright holder is properly attributed. The Turkish Armed Forces stated that all the images from their website are free for use provided the source is cited." or in more simplistic terms all images from http://www.tsk.tr which of course includes sub domains such as http://www.kkk.tsk.tr. Permission from "General Staff of the Republic of Turkey" the superior authority and the owner of the domain would be the rightful copyright holder here not the individual branches. I also find it distressing that there had been no OTRS input in the deletion discussion. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 08:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

OTRS just confirmed that the ticket isn't valid so please disregard this request until that issue is resolved. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 19:00, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

 Not done Withdrawn. INeverCry 20:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Actor_Sander_Jan_Klerk.jpg edit

Please undelete this. This is a still from my own camera. Not from tv. I own the rights. Thanks! Missdenise22 (talk) 11:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Copyvio. INeverCry 20:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Wolf spider on white.jpg edit

I can't figure out why this file was deleted. Can't find it in the delete log. Nothing on my talk page. As I said when I posted it, I took the picture myself and uploaded it here for the world. What's with the hassle? Yyyikes (talk) 19:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like someone saw the same image on Flickr with "all rights reserved", and deleted it assuming that someone had just copied it from there to Wikimedia and claimed a false license (which happens a *lot*; see Commons:License laundering). Another admin determined that you were, in fact, the same person as the Flickr account holder, so it was restored. (The license here would in reality apply even if someone took the image off of Flickr -- it's the same license -- but there is nothing wrong with just mentioning the free license here). So... it is not deleted now, and everything seems OK. (It was in the delete log with reasons named though; see here). Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Yyyikes (talk) 20:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Restored by Martin H. INeverCry 20:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Patrice mayet.jpg edit

The footballer on the picture is now 79 years old , the photographer is unknown and might be dead ,the picture has probably over 60 years.--MoroccanMuslim (talk) 22:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a credible source explicitly naming this picture as freely licensed and/or providing details on publication date, location published, and authorship? -FASTILY 02:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's the only source I have http://www.casa-lesroches.com/les%20talents%20sportifs%20aux%20RN.htm#MAYET

The location is in the area which is the subject of the article ,the picture was taken in 1951/1952 and it's mentionned on the picture in the only available source http://www.casa-lesroches.com/les%20talents%20sportifs%20aux%20RN.htm#MAYET the picture that i want to publish is part of the first picture in the chapter talking about the old football player concerned--MoroccanMuslim (talk) 04:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose As a rule, if we don't have any information about authorship or publication, an image must be from earlier than 1890 for most countries. 1950 is far too young, even in a country that has a term of 70 years from date of publication for images made by anonymous people. And, of course, for that to apply, we need to prove that the image was made anonymously -- simply being unknown is not the same thing. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • They look to be Moroccan team photos published in 1951 or 1952 or so. Current Moroccan law is 70pma (in other words 70 years after the author dies, not from when it was made). Audiovisual works are 70 years from publication, a bit shorter but still a long time, and photographs do not get that shorter term. Although... I think both terms were non-retroactively extended in 2006. The main law dates from 2000, and the terms were 50pma then. [50 years from publication for audiovisual works.] That law was definitely non-retroactive... hrm. The previous law was from 1970, also 50pma, but it appears that photographs were 50 years from creation -- not sure, but based on the Google translation of the Arabic version (plus some of our Morocco copyright tags) that seems to be the case. I think though that that law was also non-retroactive, looking at Article 62. I have no idea what the previous terms were, but if they were even 20 years from creation, then I think these photos are still under copyright in Morocco (and the U.S.). They would have still been under copyright in 1970 so they would have been extended to 50 years by that law, and extended again to 50pma in 2000, and again to 70pma in 2006. If the pre-1970 terms were 10 years from creation for photographs, the situation might be different though. Those would be pretty short terms, and are very uncommon, but not impossible (a couple countries had such photo terms in that era). The 1970 law lists some earlier laws which were repealed, which might give a clue, if someone really wanted to track things down to make sure: Law of 23 June, 1916 (Dahir of August? 21, 1334); Law of 9 November, 1926 (Dahir of May? 4, 1345); Law of 16 February 1927 (Dahir of August? 14, 1345); and Law of 24 December 1943 (Dahir of 26 Dhu al-Hijjah 1362). But at the moment it would seem that the best guess is that these photographs are still under copyright in Morocco, and therefore also in the U.S. Moroccan photographs from before 1946 might be more interesting though, as those would have expired in Morocco before 1996, meaning the U.S. copyright would not have been restored, and it would seem as though they would also be PD in Morocco. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So will you accept to undelete it ? :D --MoroccanMuslim (talk) 01:10, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No -- as Carl and I have both said, it is almost certainly still under copyright. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:45, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done File is most likely still under copyright per above. INeverCry 18:24, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Mohammad Khatami 92.jpg edit

hi this pic shouldn't be deleted, because this pis is shown by the official page of the owner of that for the public! also i choose the correct license for it and i'm waiting for the OTRS! Tnx Shahryar.seven (talk) 22:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please be patient. OTRS will restore the file once they process your request -FASTILY 05:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:kindergarten_aigen_salzburg_1998_maxRIEDER.jpg edit

{{OTRS|2013062410004497}} Bitte um Wiederherstellung. Beim nächsten Mal bitte Hinweis auf meiner Diskussionsseite! --Hubertl (talk) 22:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please be patient. OTRS will restore the file once they process your request -FASTILY 05:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pruthbrücke bei Jaramecz Fig. 50.jpg edit

Bitte Wiederherstellen, ich muss nur eine Vorlage ändern. --Hubertl (talk) 23:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to re-upload the files, but be sure to include a license tag. -FASTILY 05:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Glico logo.svg edit

In ticket:2013081010000441, the uploader asks for undeletion of this file because this vectorized logo is derived from File:Ezaki_Glico_logo.png, which is currently considererd {{PD-textlogo}} on Commons. The permission from the original logo designer would not be needed if the logo is non-copyrightable. whym (talk) 03:07, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: {{PD-textlogo}}. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Anus25.jpg edit

undelete please

The uploader requested deletion. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Erect penis3a.png edit

Undeletion request Proxyvon

 Not done There has been a deletion request: Low quality photo. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 21:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files deleted through Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Kiario12 edit

European Union and other countries have a copyright term of 70 years after a work was made available to the public and the author never disclosed their identity (it's 50 years in the Berne Convention [1])

The above mentioned photos are from the archives of local newspapers. The photographers themselves remain 'unknown/anonymous' and the photos were made available to the public from these newspapers. Thus, the copyright belonged to the newspapers.

Since the copyright owners are the newspapers, they are able to grant licenses.

They did grant a free license after a request from wikimedian Kiario12 (and el.wikipedia admin as Lemur12). This is mentioned in ticket:2013082310012299 and ticket:2013082310012628.

-Geraki TLG 14:52, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done -FASTILY 04:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Valerie Sutton in 1985.jpg edit

I did send permission for this image to be used to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org on 18 august 2013.

I am amazed that the picture was taken down anyway !! GerardM (talk) 08:08, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When you send such an email, you have to put {{OTRS pending}} on the file description page. Without this tag, the image will be labeled with {{No permission since}} and deleted after 7 days. With the tag, the image will not be deleted until after a month or the length of the OTRS backlog (currently 16 days), whichever is longer. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What King of Hearts said. Please be patient while the email you sent is being processed; OTRS will restore the file soon. -FASTILY 04:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Atardecer sobre Boulevard Gral. Artigas (vista OESTE).JPG edit

This photo was taken by me is not from another author. Why do I get the deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodilla76 (talk • contribs) 13:28, 3 September 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

What Jim said. Please change the file's license on Panaramio to a commons-compatiable license before re-uploading -FASTILY 04:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tren en Estación Peñarol.jpg edit

This photo was taken by me is not from another author. Why do I get the deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodilla76 (talk • contribs)

From Panoramio [2]:
Photo details
Uploaded on December 11, 2008
© All Rights Reserved
by Sergio_dfg
That's why. Either change the license on panoramio or send permission to OTRS. I'd change panoramio, that would proof that you are indeed the author. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 14:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What Hedwig said. Alternatively you may change the license on Panarmio. See #File:Atardecer sobre Boulevard Gral. Artigas (vista OESTE).JPG -FASTILY 04:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:lungkimsang.jpg edit

this photo is taken from stage 20 years ago. in wiki, a lot of photos are taken by media and fans, it is usual, even I say I were the person in the photo, how can you prove I am not true. I wonder the standard of deletion a photo of a star. how can you distinguish a photo on photo paper and a photo on a printed matter? how can you distinguish a photo by mobile or a snapshot from HD-TV? moreover, when somebody use the wiki photos for their blogs, how can you distinguish who is the first uploader? in what way?

File has not been deleted. Closed as inactionable -FASTILY 04:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Susan_Shabangu.jpg edit

MiningIndaba is the current owner of the copyrights for this photo since it was taken at the event. Please undelete.

File has not been deleted. Closed as inactionable -FASTILY 04:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:SaltatioMortis2013byAnnBuster (4).jpg bitte wiederherstellen! edit

Hallo zusammen,

ich verklickte mich ob der Lizenzen, da ich das das erste Mal gemacht habe. Ich vertrete Saltatio Mortis als Agentur und das geuploadete Bild wird selbstverständlich von der Fotografin Ann Buster zur freien Verfügung gestellt.

File:SaltatioMortis2013byAnnBuster (4).jpg - hier also bitte die Löschung rückgängig machen.

Vielen Dank und beste Grüße --Chackalak (talk) 07:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to have OTRS permission now -FASTILY 19:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Crescent_City_Radio_Logo.jpg edit

Undelete, original and only logo of Crescent City Radio, not infringing on other logos. --Munesanti91 (talk) 07:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Fair-use/non-free files are forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 19:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:MJB-by-writing.jpg edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: ::I sent permission of photograph Marija Jelen ml., my sister for File:MJB-by-writing.jpg. Photograph is my sister Marija Jelen. She has not e-mail, so she wrote permission with her hand. She photographed mother Marija Jelen Brenčič by writing in year 1968 at home, Šentilj pri Velenju. I, Stebunik (Janez Jelen) photographed this picture with my photo-aparat. I asked you already twice for undeletion. Thank you very much.

DOVOLJENJE Jaz, Marija Jelen, dipl. ing. agr., sem avtorica te slike, ko moja mama Marija Jelen-Brenčič MJB tipka na pisalni stroj Underwood. Slika je nastala okrog leta 1985. Dovoljujem, da se ta slika objavi na Wikipediji in povsod drugod pod "prosto licenco".

Marija Jelen, dipl. ing. agr Šalek, 28. januarja 2013


English:

PERMISSION I, Marija Jelen, dipl. ing. agr., I am the author of this picture, when Marija Jelen-Brenčič MJB writes on the typewriter "Underwood". The picture was made around 1985. I give permission for the publication of this image, on Wikipedia and elsewhere under the "free license".

Marija Jelen, dipl. ing. agr Šalek, 28th January 2013

My adress> mukimaka@yahoo.com (Janez Jelen, Stebunik) 

Stebunik (talk) 07:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you. INeverCry 18:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Erect Penis12.png edit

please do not delete this file. It is chain series of 'erect penis5' to 'erect penis 16' If request will not accepted by administration they have to delete all files of this series ' erect penis 5 to 'erect penis16'. please kindly to attention this request. Do not know more how to operate to edit/talk. It is hard and Out of understanding maurya1951 05:30, 04 September 2013

 Not done File hasn't been deleted. INeverCry 16:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:erect penis13.png edit

please do not delete this file. It is chain series of 'erect penis5' to 'erect penis 16' If request will not accepted by administration they have to delete all files of this series ' erect penis 5 to 'erect penis16'. please kindly to attention this request. Do not know more how to operate to edit/talk. It is hard and Out of understanding maurya1951 05:30, 04 September 2013

 Not done There was no file uploaded to this filename. INeverCry 16:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Erect Penis12.png edit

please do not delete this file. It is chain series of 'erect penis5' to 'erect penis 16' If request will not accepted by administration they have to delete all files of this series ' erect penis 5 to 'erect penis16'. please kindly to attention this request. Do not know more how to operate to edit/talk. It is hard and Out of understanding maurya1951 05:30, 04 September 2013

 Not done File hasn't been deleted. INeverCry 16:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Ramon Esteve Cambra edit

Buenas tardes,

Me gustaría que restaurarán la imagen, ya que es de nuestra propiedad. Estamos intentando crear la página del arquitecto y diseñador Ramon Esteve y estamos teniendo muchísimos problemas a la hora de publicar las fotografías.

Por favor restaurenlo.

(Ramon Esteve Cambra (talk) 13:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

 Not done Userpages with detailed biographies and links are out of COM:SCOPE. INeverCry 16:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:DSCN6737 (6260223941).jpg edit

Request temporary undeletion to allow deletion discussion to reach a better consensus? --Brainy J (talk) 16:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The image is from Flickr and can readily be seen there for those who need to see it to opine. Эlcobbola talk 17:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose No need to re-open the DR either. This is a personal image of an unknown guy holding a very unremarkable little fish. Out of scope. INeverCry 18:02, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing as  Not done per above -FASTILY 19:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tejados de Madrid. Colección particular Madrid..jpg edit

Entiendo que no existe problema en la publicación de este archivo fotográfico. Representa un cuadro del pintor José Bardasano Baos que actualmente es de mi propiedad.--Manuel Solana (talk) 20:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)Manuel Solana[reply]

 Oppose The fact that you own the painting does not mean that you own the copyright. In almost every case the copyright is owned by the artist's heirs. Therefore you do not have the right to license the painting for use on Commons -- that belongs to the heirs. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 19:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Joseph F. Smith family.png edit

File:Joseph F. Smith family.png

according to this user User_talk:INeverCry#Upload_question,

this file Commons:Deletion requests/File:Joseph F. Smith family.png,

is an exact copy of this pic: http://en.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/874570

(said user has indicated a preference for undeleting, rather than re-uploading the file)

IF this admin-user (who is able to check deleted files, which i am not) is correct, then the file in question is a circa 1900 photograph, TAKEN IN THE USA. the context makes this point abundantly obvious to anyone who has any basic knowledge of the history of mormonism.

that being the case, the file was incorrectly deleted by user:fastily, when it should properly have been re-licensed as pd-1923 sa. the only commentor on the deletion request was the nominator. user:fastily closed & deleted without comment.

(i reserve comment on user:fastily's deletion activities, except to note that this is far from the first time when one of their decisions has required undoing)

pls confirm that the deleted pic is identical to the linked one, & undelete?

Lx 121 (talk) 04:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This file is labeled as "circa 1900" at http://en.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/874570 (identical image to the deleted version here). The deleted file gives the following as the source: "Utah Quarterly Journal 73(3): 212, taken from Widtsoe Collection, Utah State Historical Society" (dead link). The uploader also stated the date as "c 1900." INeverCry 04:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
yes, and...? -- with all due respect, i'm not clear what your point is? if the file is from around 1900, & it's a us photo, then it is OBVIOUSLY PD. (i'll also note that i agree with the approximate dating, given the clothing, furniture, etc.) Lx 121 (talk) 05:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OH; you were confirming your statement that the files were identical? i'm sorry, if that was your intention, then i misunderstood the point. Lx 121 (talk) 05:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • actually, i think i can now confirm a pre-1923 date: [3] joseph smith died in 1918, & that appears to be him in the centre of the photo... q.e.d.
Lx 121 (talk) 05:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards  Support, as PD-1923 seems likely. The deletion reasons were not really accurate -- the simple fact that a photo is in a copyrighted journal does not mean it is copyrighted itself; that depends on the history of the photo itself. US photos were not based on the year of death of the photographer, but rather the publication date. They are most certainly never based on the death of the person who accumulates a photo archive, unless that person was also the photographer. The usage of PD-Art may not have been correct but nothing about that is a deletion reason (and PD-Art does *not* require the death date of the author, particularly for US works based on publication date). The Utah Historical Society seems to claim a copyright on the "digital reproduction" but that should not generate a new copyright. The record page indicates they own a paper print, not the original negative, which would seem to indicate they merely own a copy which was distributed (probably to other members of the Mormon church, one of whom's heirs eventually donated the copy to the historical society). If someone outside the family had a copy, as it would seem, that points to publication quite some time ago. The main chance of being still under copyright was if it was not published at all until recently, and if the Widstoe person was the actual photographer. There are tons of copies all over the net so it may be hard to trace its origin. There is a copy in this book, which dates the photo in 1904, and gives a different source (which is an indication that copies were distributed to at least church members at the time). Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I also lean toward  Support but the question is nowhere near as clear as LX121's tone suggests. PD-1923 requires not simply creation before 1923, but actual publication. If the image was not actually published until recently, then it will still be under copyright until 120 years after creation. However, the fact that there are apparently multiple non-family old copies strongly suggests publication pre 1923. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:01, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done ok apparently. Too bad LX121 lacks the courtesy to ask at my talk page first -FASTILY 19:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Esperando el metro (9372899418).jpg edit

Adding to the reasons to keep originally given, also no other image shows standing passengers in Category:Barcelona Metro rolling stock. -- Tuválkin ✉ 04:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Images of persons in Spain require the consent of the subject -- there is no evidence of that. Although the image shows some detail of the wall and ceiling of a Metro car, it is dominated by an up the nostrils view of an apprehensive young woman -- not your usual record shot of a Metro vehicle. So, even ignoring the legal question, I can't see any use for this. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Per Jim. No scope, and appears to violate personality rights -FASTILY 19:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Znamka Reka Kolpa.JPG edit

I did not find any information that Slovenian post stamps are protected by copyright law Hythlodot (talk) 08:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim. Protected by copyright. -FASTILY 19:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tagore_Baal_Niketan_School,_Karnal_-_Assembly_Ground.jpg edit

Request if the following images can be undeleted as they belong to the school TAgore Baal Niketan and are also shown on their website - tagorebaalniketan.com. I am a member of the trust that runs the school and have created the Wikipedia page on the school as well as gotten the pix clicked or taken from school archives.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambika Raheja (talk • contribs) 08:40, 5 September 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

  • As you say, these appear on the copyrighted web site www.tagorebaalniketan.com. Since we have no way of knowing your connection with the school, please have an officer of the the governing body send a license from an e-mail address at tagorebaalniketan.com using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 19:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Www.treetopbuilder.net-12.JPG edit

Hi sir, could you please clarify my dubts? why have these images been deleted? why do you say it is a copyright violation? I have taken these photos, modified, and published..also on other magazines ( http://www.edizionirendi.it/ita/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/6-case-alberi-giugno-2013.pdf ) I am the owner of them and their contents. Whose copyright has been violated? I'm happy to give them to the community, I've only marked them to evoid being stollen.. Thank you sir. Jacupus


File:Www.treetopbuilder.net-10.jpg|

File:Www.treetopbuilders.net-11.JPG|

File:Www.treetopbuilders.net-12.jpg|

File:Www.treetopbuilders.net-13.JPG|

File:Www.treetopbuilder.net.jpg|

File:Www.treetopbuilder.net-5.jpg|

File:Www.treetopbuilder.net-12.JPG|

File:Www.treetopbuilder.net-9.jpg|

File:Www.treetopbuilder.net-8.JPG|

File:Www.treetopbuilder.net-2.JPG|

File:Www.treetopbuilder.net-7.jpg|

File:Www.treetopbuilder.net-6.jpg|

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 19:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Afhammad edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I request that these images be undeleted as a member of the COM:OTRS team due to the confirmation of the permission and licensing under the CC-BY-SA-3.0 and GFDL (unversioned) licenseing by the copyright holder as seen in the OTRS ticket number 2013080210006004. Thank you. Clarkcj12 (talk) 15:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done -FASTILY 19:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Desperta Ferro Ediciones edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Please undelete these images as according the Deletion Request. Since then the OTRS team has since received the required licensing and permission from the publisher/author of the images to be released under the CC-BY-SA-3.0 (Unported) and the GFDL licnese. OTRS team members can view the ticket number 2013081410003342. Thank you. Clarkcj12 (talk) 16:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done -FASTILY 19:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files deleted by Fastily edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: As a member of the OTRS team, I have reviewed the licensing and the permission, and feel it is satisfied, under the terms of the CC-BY-SA-3.0 (unported) and the GFDL licenseing as per the agreement by the Copyright Holder. OTRS members can view the ticket number 2013081410004485. Thank you. Clarkcj12 (talk) 16:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Processing large request MorganKevinJ(talk) 16:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done except for Markus Kahre.jpg as it is a duplicate of Markus Kåhre.jpg. MorganKevinJ(talk) 17:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:EOF.jpeg edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: As a COM:OTRS Member I feel it has been satisfied, that the required permissions and licensing has been met by per the agreement by the copyright holder of the mentioned image. Under the CC-BY-SA-3.0 and GFDL licensing. OTRS members can view ticket number 2013081610006916. Thank you. Clarkcj12 (talk) 17:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done -FASTILY 19:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Photograph of Javid Husain.jpg edit

Please undelete the image at (File:Photograph of Javid Husain.jpg). The written permission has been emailed to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). This permission is copied below as well:-

I hereby affirm that I, Farooq Husain, am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the attached Photograph of "Javid Husain" (File:Photograph of Javid Husain.jpg).

I agree to publish this work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported". I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me.

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

Name: Farooq Husain. Email: farooq.husain@gmail.com Authority: I am the copyright-holder of this photograph, as it is a photograph of the subject taken by me. Date: 5-Sep-2013

--Farooqhusain (talk) 20:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment COM:OTRS members can view the related ticket in the OTRS system under ticket number 2013090510017227 --Clarkcj12 (talk) 21:05, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Alan (talk) 22:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lessalk morefun4you 2003.jpg edit

File:Lessalk morefun4you 2003.jpg

Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren.

Ich erkläre in Bezug auf die Bilder

Lessalk_morefun4you_2003.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lessalk_morefun4you_2003.jpg

Lessalk_morefun4you_2004.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lessalk_morefun4you_2004.jpg

Lessalk_morefun4you_2005.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lessalk_morefun4you_2005.jpg

Lessalk_morefun4you_2006.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lessalk_morefun4you_2006.jpg

Lessalk_morefun4you_2007-08.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lessalk_morefun4you_2007-08.jpg

Lessalk_morefun4you_2009-10.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lessalk_morefun4you_2009-10.jpg

Lessalk_morefun4you_2011-12.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lessalk_morefun4you_2011-12.jpg

dass 4YOUgend Inhaber des vollumfänglichen Nutzungsrechts ist. 4YOUgend erlaubt hiermit jedermann die Weiternutzung der Bilder unter der freien Lizenz „Creative Commons Namensnennung-Weitergabe unter gleichen Bedingungen 3.0 Deutschland“ (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/de/legalcode).

4YOUgend genehmigt somit in urheberrechtlicher Hinsicht Dritten das Recht, das Bild (auch gewerblich) zu nutzen und zu verändern, sofern sie die Lizenzbedingungen wahren. Mir ist bekannt, dass ich diese Einwilligung üblicherweise nicht widerrufen kann.

Mir ist bekannt, dass sich die Unterstellung unter eine freie Lizenz nur auf das Urheberrecht bezieht und es mir daher unbenommen ist, aufgrund anderer Gesetze (Persönlichkeitsrecht, Markenrecht usw.) gegen Dritte vorzugehen, die das Bild im Rahmen der freien Lizenz rechtmäßig, auf Grund der anderen Gesetze aber unrechtmäßig nutzen.

Gleichwohl erwerbe ich keinen Anspruch darauf, dass das Bild dauerhaft auf der Wikipedia eingestellt wird.


Linz, 06.09.2013


Mag. Julia Sageder, Kommunikationsmanagement i.V. Verein 4YOUgend

4YOUgend, 09:58, 6. September 2013 (CEST)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 09:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

FENCE edit

Hallo, ik speel bij FENCE en wens onze foto op de wiki site te plaatsten. Ik heb het al vele malen geprobeerd, maar telkens wordt het verwijderd... De foto hebben we zelf laten maken en mag vrij gebruikt worden. Wat moet ik nog meer doen?? Salute! N.

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 09:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:WYFD.jpg edit

The web address that the photo is from is included, http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000870/

 Not done. Copyright violation.. Alan (talk) 22:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:kathybates.jpg edit

The web address it was taken from is included, http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000870/

 Not done. Copyright violation. Alan (talk) 22:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:1950 Republic India 03.jpg edit

This is a 1950 stamps and according to The Indian Copyright Act, 1957 (Chapter V Section 25), Anonymous works, photographs, cinematographic works, sound recordings, government works, and works of corporate authorship or of international organizations enter the public domain 60 years after the date on which they were first published, counted from the beginning of the following calendar year (ie. as of 2013, works published prior to 1 January 1953 are considered public domain). The person who nominated this stamp for deletion, and the mod who deleted it should have at least read its license and understood it before deletion.--PremKudvaTalk 11:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{{PD-India}}


Right, but if it was still under copyright in India in 1996 (the URAA date mentioned in the deletion request), its U.S. copyright got restored for a term of 95 years from publication. Commons policy is "public domain in the country of origin and the U.S.". The above tag is just the first half of that; the DR was about the second half. So, the question is what would make it PD in the US. If this was a privately-owned copyright, it should remained deleted. For UK government works, they have said that the crown copyright expiration is considered effective worldwide, a sort of form of PD-author, but I'm not sure that other governments have said the same. But if this was a government-owned copyright, there might be some argument that it be treated similarly. But, I'm not sure how much support that idea has outside of Crown Copyright type works (although the "government works" portion of India's law is directly inherited from the UK's Crown Copyright). Carl Lindberg (talk) 11:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per COM:URAA. Alan (talk) 14:48, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Aaliyah2013.png.png edit

The image was fine and was not harming anyone. As an Aaliyah fan ...I know what we want to see as her main image. Thank You --Datyger (talk) 21:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC) Datyger[reply]

  •  Oppose The image is from Tumblr and therefore probably not your own work, as you claimed. There is no reason to believe that it is freely licensed. Unfortunately, what you want to see and what the law allows us to use are often different things. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Per Jim & COM:PRP. Alan (talk) 14:44, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

TimedText:March of the Volunteers instrumental.ogg.ja.srt edit

This request applies to all of the following files:

  • (Deletion log); 07:41, 6 September 2013 Fastily (talk | contribs) deleted page TimedText:March of the Volunteers instrumental.ogg.zh-hans.srt (Commons:Deletion requests/Subtitles of File:March of the Volunteers instrumental.ogg)
  • (Deletion log); 07:41, 6 September 2013 Fastily (talk | contribs) deleted page TimedText:March of the Volunteers instrumental.ogg.ko.srt (Commons:Deletion requests/Subtitles of File:March of the Volunteers instrumental.ogg)
  • (Deletion log); 07:41, 6 September 2013 Fastily (talk | contribs) deleted page TimedText:March of the Volunteers instrumental.ogg.es.srt (Commons:Deletion requests/Subtitles of File:March of the Volunteers instrumental.ogg)
  • (Deletion log); 07:41, 6 September 2013 Fastily (talk | contribs) deleted page TimedText:March of the Volunteers instrumental.ogg.vi.srt (Commons:Deletion requests/Subtitles of File:March of the Volunteers instrumental.ogg)
  • (Deletion log); 07:41, 6 September 2013 Fastily (talk | contribs) deleted page TimedText:March of the Volunteers instrumental.ogg.ja.srt (Commons:Deletion requests/Subtitles of File:March of the Volunteers instrumental.ogg)
  • (Deletion log); 07:41, 6 September 2013 Fastily (talk | contribs) deleted page TimedText:March of the Volunteers instrumental.ogg.en.srt (Commons:Deletion requests/Subtitles of File:March of the Volunteers instrumental.ogg)
  • (Deletion log); 07:41, 6 September 2013 Fastily (talk | contribs) deleted page TimedText:March of the Volunteers instrumental.ogg.zh-hant.srt (Commons:Deletion requests/Subtitles of File:March of the Volunteers instrumental.ogg)
  • (Deletion log); 07:41, 6 September 2013 Fastily (talk | contribs) deleted page TimedText:March of the Volunteers instrumental.ogg.ru.srt (Commons:Deletion requests/Subtitles of File:March of the Volunteers instrumental.ogg)
  • (Deletion log); 07:41, 6 September 2013 Fastily (talk | contribs) deleted page TimedText:March of the Volunteers instrumental.ogg.fr.srt (Commons:Deletion requests/Subtitles of File:March of the Volunteers instrumental.ogg)
  • (Deletion log); 07:41, 6 September 2013 Fastily (talk | contribs) deleted page TimedText:March of the Volunteers instrumental.ogg.de.srt (Commons:Deletion requests/Subtitles of File:March of the Volunteers instrumental.ogg)

For some reason I was not notified of the discussion which took place here, despite being the page creator of most of those, and hence wasn't able to respond to the deletion request. The national anthem of the PRC falls under Article 5 of the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China, which gives an exemption. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 15:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then -FASTILY 00:15, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:BLACKHOLE SUN.jpg edit

see also: Commons:Deletion requests/File:BLACKHOLE SUN.jpg

I have nothing of substance to add to my original point: I know almost nothing about the technical aspects of digital photography, but a little common sense told me that this image is worth keeping, and I tersely explained why — hoping it should be enough to at least delay the outcome of the DR till someone knowledgeable about the matter could weight in. I’m however shocked that files can be deleted on a whim when there is no time or patience/willingness to explore the matter further.

Let me re-stress: This is not about a technical imperfection on the part of the photographer, but rather an unavoidable artifact caused by the nature of the recording device. As such, it should be documentable in Commons with a broad range of examples, and yet, what appeared to be the single recognized example so far, was thoughtlessly deleted under pretenses of «hurr, hurr, here’s another blurry shot», completed with patronizing tut-tuting.

Some links that might give context on this phenomenon to those more knowledgeable and/or patient than those involved in the matter so far:

-- Tuválkin ✉ 00:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, while scouring the Commons for other documented cases of this, I come across with File:Black hole sun.jpg, which is either a duplicate of the deleted file or a very similar shot (I don’t remember the details of the deleted photo). -- Tuválkin ✉ 01:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These are 2 frames taken at the same time/place. The deleted one has the artifact more centered. I haven't got the time to look into this right now, but if this is a widely experienced phenomenon common to digital cameras, I would support it being restored. INeverCry 03:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: Appears to be useful in illustrating a digital camera defect. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:St Vincent and the Grenadines Coat of Arms.svg edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Unclear as to why this svg file is not permitted, but the png file it was based on is permitted. Prez001 (talk) 20:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Considering I withdrew my nominated, I'm surprised to see it was deleted. It probably should come back in good faith. Fry1989 eh? 00:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have no problems if there are any issues with the file, but as Fry1989 eh? noted, it was a surprise to see it deleted. Prez001

Well this is embarrassing -FASTILY 00:52, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Zero Mostel - movie still-2.jpg edit

Rationale given for deletion is contrary to copyright law, along with the fact that I was not notified about the tagging of the image for deletion in order to reply.

According to copyright definitions, publication takes place upon "the offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display." Therefore, the existence of a movie publicity photo constitutes publication. It is irrelevant to require that the "date and manner or original publication," which is what the tagging editor required, be found. For mass produced publicity photos, this is not even possible. --Light show (talk) 02:52, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment You were notified about it. AjaxQuickDelete notifies the original uploader, not his future aliases. Putting your old talkpage on your new watchlist would be a good idea. INeverCry 07:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose As pointed out in the DR, this still was made showing the preliminary title Kitty and the Marriage Broker. The movie was subsequently released as The Model and the Marriage Broker. It is therefore likely that the photograph as seen here was never actually published because you don't sent out publicity stills with the wrong movie name. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:29, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not likely that they would set up a new photo session for a generic head shot simply because a word was changed on movie still. --Light show (talk) 22:48, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think they would hesitate to send out press photos with the name they were using. Snopes article shows Warner Bros. pushing false information about Reagan co-starring in Casablanca months before it started filming; I see no reason to think they didn't start hyping it long before it came out.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I defer to Prosfilaes on this. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:59, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently ok -FASTILY 22:38, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Saulsches Haus (Ministerhotel), Seestraße 18 in Dresden, Fotografie um 1900.jpg edit

Falls source nicht angegeben war, hier im nachhinein die Quelle: Stefan Hertzig: Das Dresdner Bürgerhaus des Spätbarock 1738–1790. Gesellschaft Historischer Neumarkt Dresden e. V., Dresden 2007, ISBN 3-9807739-4-9, S. 21.
Danke schön im voraus --46.223.120.129 20:15, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please add that in, thanks -FASTILY 22:38, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

Template:PD-scan-100 edit

This was deleted as an "Unused and implausible, broken, or cross-namespace redirect". This is neither unused nor implausible. Besides, the template is inserted automatically by User:OgreBot 2 (replacing something else) when cleaning up recently uploaded files automatically. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:11, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You could just re-create it, that's fine with me. However, bear in mind that the original target of the redirect no longer exists. -FASTILY 22:38, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:White page.jpg edit

Unsupported malformed DR; admin deletion without explanation; another pending DR for the same file ignored. -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose This was a perfectly satisfactory DR -- the reason given, "no description", is accurate and to the point. It was open for the required seven days and received no comment -- probably because it was an obvious case. Two people -- the nom and the closing Admin -- agreed that the file should be deleted. The closing Admin is not required to give a reason -- and if he or she agrees with the nom and there is no opposition, adding "no description" or "per nom" in the closing comment is a pointless waste of Admin time. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Agree with Jim, Fastily and DR nominator. The closure of DR has been logical. --Alan (talk) 12:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Castle Zelem.jpg edit

my photo of Castle Zelem was deleted. I took it myself, so there shouldn't be any licence viloation, since it is my own picture. Please upload it again!

File:Castle Zelem.jpg never existed. (log). Upload again the image. --Alan (talk) 12:12, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:SEDIÇÃO DE JUAZEIRO - Cartaz Oficial.jpg edit

Meu nome é Daniel Abreu, cadastrado no WikiCommons pelo user "Videcine". Sou autor das imagens do cartaz e da montagem digital, e produtor e diretor da obra a qual se refere. Este cartaz oficial foi desenvolvido por mim no Adobe Photoshop nas dependências da FGF Faculdade Grande Fortaleza, e a torno livre, através desta, para o seu uso em todos os fins.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Videcine (talk • contribs) 21:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

Por favor, siga os passos descritos em "Commons:OTRS/pt#Envio_da_permiss.C3.A3o_passo-a-passo" para enviar uma permissão por e-mail autorizando a publicação da imagem no Commons.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 21:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Empauqe De Las Papas Pringles.JPG edit

File:Empauqe De Las Papas Pringles.JPG Hola La siguiente es para apelar la eliminación de mi Archivo Empauqe De Las Papas Pringles.JPG ya que en la descripción de porque lo van a borrar dice:

We're sorry, but File:Empauqe De Las Papas Pringles.JPG has been marked as a copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content, that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Reproductions of copyrighted works are also subject to the same copyright, and therefore this file must unfortunately be considered non-free.

“
”

que en español seria:

Lo sentimos, pero el archivo: Empauqe De Las Papas Pringles.JPG se ha marcado como una violación de derechos de autor. Wikimedia Commons sólo acepta contenido libre, es decir, imágenes y otros archivos multimedia que pueden ser utilizados por cualquier persona, para cualquier propósito. Reproducciones de obras protegidas también están sujetos a la misma los derechos de autor, y por lo tanto este archivo lamentablemente debe ser considerado no libre.

“
”

Mi pregunta es la siguiente:¿porque dice que el trabajo es una violación de derechos de autor sabiendo de que yo soy el autor de dicho trabajo? inclusive aun guardo la foto tanto en mi ordenador como en la cámara en la que tome la anteriormente mencionada. Si el problema se presenta porque depronto la foto aparece con un fondo azul pues yo fui quien agrego el fondo azul. Iclusive aún tengo la foto original. Agradezco mi trabajo sea reingresado a WikimediaCommons Att:Holaquetalcomoteva--Holaquetalcomoteva (talk) 22:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC) Saludos desde Colombia[reply]

El diseño del paquete de Pringles, el logotipo, etc... que has fotografíado está protegido por los derechos de autor. Tu foto es una obra derivada que ha utilizado material protegido como base sin su correspondiente permiso, por lo que es una violación. Sintiéndolo, el borrado ha sido correcto en base a COM:L y COM:DW. Un saludo. --Alan (talk) 22:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:August 24,2013 - Manila 2013-08-24 19-20.jpg edit

I reiterate the previous reason to keep: That this photo had become one of the best examples of Category:Frowning — apparently not staged, no copyright or privacy problems, not bad photo quality. The «circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner» if this UR is decided by someone who is not dead set in reducing the “clutter” in Commons by accepting just any DR (as opposed to, say, improving categorization and scoring the millions of forgotten files for worthy DR candidates). -- Tuválkin ✉ 06:15, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose Low quality unused phone selfie (bad lighting, mediocre-res, blurry/grainy). The frowning bit is quite a stretch. INeverCry 07:11, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose We do not keep images of unidentified people in unidentified places -- aside from the fact that there may be privacy problems with an unknown person and place, Commons is not Facebook, and we have a strict rule against keeping personal images except for one or two for the uploader's own User Page. Any image will fit in multiple categories -- cat4egorization does not make a personal image a Keep. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:20, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can argue in favour of a DR by using the selfie card, and you can use the privacy concerns argument. But you cannot use both. Anything goes for lazy deletionism, I guess. (So disappointed!) -- Tuválkin ✉ 10:37, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Woody Allen - Diane Keaton - Manhattan.jpg edit

Sorry, this is another DR that slipped by without me seeing it in time to reply there. The rationale for deletion is meaningless. Especially the comment about the "outlandish" part, since the photo was used to promote a recent TV broadcast. The image has even been used on promotional materials for the original film. The original upload included the front and back, with no copyright, of a publicity photo. --Light show (talk) 03:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Light show's argument is outlandish, if not outright nonsense. They uploaded a photo which was published in 2012 to promote a 2012 TV broadcast. It carried no copyright notice at that time, and none was required bu the law at that time. They then asserted, without a shred of evidence, that the 2012 publication somehow proved that the photo had been published in 1979, and, equally without evidence, that the 1979 publication had carried no copyright notice. This is called, informally, making stuff up and it falls well short of what is required for establishing the public domain status of an image. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (talk) 11:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ok with closing this request. A quick image search for "Woody Allen Diane Keaton Manhattan", shows half a dozen sites using this photo. But since this wasn't an "original" still from 1979, just a copy, I'll pass on trying to restore it. --Light show (talk) 01:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And  Not done per above -FASTILY 04:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Grito de Mujer en Kosovo.jpg edit

I am the Public Relationship affiliate for the Mujeres Poetas Internacional MPI, inc. I have the authorozation of their president to used all graphic material an info about this ONG and all its translations. I also happen to be the photographer and some times travel to take pictures of Festival Internacional de Poesia Grito de Mujer events. Thanks Tubeth2000 (talk) 13:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 04:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Khayanga D.W Miss Commonwealth Africa.jpg edit

Picture was uploaded officialy by the PR officer of Khayanga D. Wasike. It can be re-used and circulated freely.

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 04:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Schema Roller thrust bearing, cylindrical.svg edit

It was deleted by JuTa on 11 July 2013, obviously because of licence problems. I made the pic and would like to correct it. Is it possible to preserve the description text, which was quite an effort to write? --Carnaubo (talk) 15:47, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The same applies to these files:

File:Schema Roller bearing, tapered.svg

File:Schema Roller bearing, cylindrical.svg

File:Schema Roller bearing, crossed.svg

File:Schema Ball bearing, self aligning.svg

File:Schema Ball bearing, four point contact.svg

File:Schema Ball bearing, deep groove.svg

File:Schema Ball bearing, deep groove ring-self-aligning.svg

File:Schema Ball bearing, angular contact single.svg

File:Schema Ball bearing, angular contact double x.svg

File:Schema Ball bearing axial, deep groove.svg

File:Schema Ball bearing axial, deep groove ring-self-aligning.svg --Carnaubo (talk) 15:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK They are back. Please apply a valid license template within a week from now. --JuTa 19:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rocio Durcal En concierto... INOLVIDABLE Logo.png edit

El motivo de la solicitud es porque la imagen File:Rocio Durcal En concierto... INOLVIDABLE Logo.png fue borrada por una supuesta violación de derechos de autor, por la cual quiero aclarar que la creación de esta imagen es totalmente de mi autoría y no fue extraída ni copiada de Internet y ni mucho menos NO es carátula original del álbum. La imagen fue creación propia en la elaboración de un Logotipo del álbum en lo que hace referencia al álbum "En concierto… Inolvidable" de "Rocío Dúrcal", la cual es permitida por ustedes elaborar y subir archivos en forma de Logotipo. ACLARO NUEVAMENTE que la Imagen NO es carátula original, SOLAMENTE ES UN LOGOTIPO de álbum. Rocio Durcal En concierto... INOLVIDABLE Logo.png . Les agradezco por su atención a la presente. (Dalzate (talk) 18:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

  •  Oppose It doesn't matter. If it an actual album cover, then it is a copyvio -- since it appears in many places on the web, that seems to be the case. However, if it is, as you say, your own work, created entirely by yourself without copying anything, including the creation of the photograph, then there is no copyvio, but it is out of scope -- we do not keep personally created art on Commons unless the artist is notable. Either way, the deletion was correct. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:22, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Per Jim. The file is not appropriate for Commons -FASTILY 04:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Telefunken RE144 1937.jpg edit

Please undelete this image. This picture was taken by myself an I want to share it here under {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}}. Die Aufnahme wurde von mir selbst durchgeführt und ich möchte sie unter {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} freigeben. Hihiman (talk) 21:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and re-upload the files, but be sure to specify a license tag, otherwise the files will be re-deleted -FASTILY 04:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Master_of_Tactics_Game_Banner.jpg edit

I am the creator of this file I grant access under the commons license for poeple to use or modify this image.

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 04:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:223661 101503sn.jpg edit

Unsupported malformed DR; admin deletion without explanation; another pending DR for the same file ignored. -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose This was a perfectly satisfactory DR -- the reason given, "no description", is accurate and to the point. It was open for the required seven days and received no comment -- probably because it was an obvious case. Two people -- the nom and the closing Admin -- agreed that the file should be deleted. The closing Admin is not required to give a reason -- and if he or she agrees with the nom and there is no opposition, adding "no description" or "per nom" in the closing comment is a pointless waste of Admin time. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:11, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Description (name of the musician depicted) was given in the discussion. It is «satisfactory» because it adds yet another skull in the deletionists’ fuselage, but robs Commons of media portraing Afghan music. -- Tuválkin ✉ 10:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the name of the subject was given, then the "no description" is moot and the file should be undeleted, unless there is some reason not to. The DR being satisfactory is not a reason not to reopen it; I am sure many DRs go unnoticed by those that could argue the case. --LPfi (talk) 14:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim. DR was according to the policies. Alan (talk) 14:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Daughtry 2013.jpg edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I believe this file should not have been deleted, as it is my photograph, taken by me and described as uploaded. I previously had posted this photo on onstagemagazine.com, but have now deleted it, but it is my own work, and I am not violating any copyright at all. I also own onstagemagazine.com . I received an email from (WordPress Tabercil> [tabercil.wiki@gmail.com]) verifying that I had uploaded my own photographs, to which I responded that yes, I did upload them and they are mine and I own the copyrights. Could you please undelete this file in order that I may share it on your site? Thank you. Nightshooter (talk) 15:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC) Nightshooter (talk) 15:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC) Nightshooter (talk) 05:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 06:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kenny_Chesney_2013.jpg edit

I believe this file should not have been deleted, as it is my photograph, taken by me and described as uploaded. I previously had posted this photo on onstagemagazine.com, but have now deleted it, but it is my own work, and I am not violating any copyright at all. I also own onstagemagazine.com . I received an email from (WordPress Tabercil> [tabercil.wiki@gmail.com]) verifying that I had uploaded my own photographs, to which I responded that yes, I did upload them and they are mine and I own the copyrights. Could you please undelete this file in order that I may share it on your site? Thank you. Nightshooter (talk) 15:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

There were 5 files that I uploaded at the same time, two of them were permitted, and 3 were not.

Nightshooter (talk) 16:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC) Nightshooter (talk) 05:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 06:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Armenian Eternity Sign on Yerevan Tees.jpg, File:Armenian Eternity Sign on Goriss Tees.jpg, File:Armenian Generation Sign on Ararat Tees.jpg edit

(Google) File:Armenian Eternity Sign on Yerevan Tees.jpg, File:Armenian Eternity Sign on Goriss Tees.jpg, File:Armenian Generation Sign on Ararat Tees.jpg are the technical reproductions, image of shirts, that is freely shows in the store, on the shelves and in streets on human. The above Teeses is exhibited at the show in the store shirts, ie is an element of the panorama and use in complies {{FOP-Armenia}} In that case, does not matter who the author of photography. You can require a source, as in my other uploaded files, but this photos was changed by me (you can compare the files sizes and qualitys).

Vahram Mekhitarian (talk) 18:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Apparent copyvio, ripped from an external website. -FASTILY 06:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Agamee_Prakashani_Logo.JPG edit

Dear Sir,

I believe this file should not have been deleted, as it is my comapany logo and im the uploader. I am the sole proprietor of my organization. I did upload them and they are mine and I own the copyrights. Could you please do not delete this file in order that I may share it on your site?

Thank you.

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 06:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Armenian Eternity Sign Armenoids Armenia.jpg edit

(Google) File:Armenian Eternity Sign Armenoids Armenia.jpg is a technical reproduction (scaned), image of cover CD-Box, that is freely shows in the store, home ..., ie is an element of the panorama and use in complies {{FOP-Armenia}} In that case, does not matter who the author of photography. You can require a source, as in my other uploaded files, but this photo was changed by me (you can compare the file size and quality).

Vahram Mekhitarian (talk) 18:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CD covers can be used in Wikipedia under "fair use" but "fair use" media files are not allowed on Commons.--Δαβίδ (talk) 18:21, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Apparent copyvio, ripped from an external website. -FASTILY 06:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Nils-Aslak Valkeapää Beaivi, Áhcázan The Sun, My Father.png edit

The file was, if my memory serves, "licensed" as {{PD-ineligible}}. I nominated it for deletion as I did not find the design simple. After some research (sadly only afterwords), I realized it was closely based on the tradition, which means the design might lack originality. See the image in the deletion request with a similar design on it.

The closing administrator, Fastily, seems to have given no thought to the threshold of originality, but deleted the image as "fair use apparently", which seems taken from thin air.

It seems I should not take any file to a DR before I have made up my own mind, as the image risks being deleted on random irrelevant grounds.

--LPfi (talk) 09:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has obviously had a change of heart -FASTILY 20:25, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Family Guy Logo SVG.svg edit

The admin Magog the Ogre deleted the image because the user thinks that its a copyright, and its not. This logo is trademarked, as the logos from The Cleveland Show and American Dad!. --Blurred Lines (talk) 11:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose In the USA and almost all other countries, all created works have a copyright for many years after creation. Logos may, in addition, be trademarks, which may or may not be registered, but the fact that the logo is a trademark does not affect its copyright status. In order to keep this we would need explicit permission from the show's producers. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim. Alan (talk) 14:17, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bogdannikolaevnikolov.jpg edit

Here is the proof that the picture is free to use.

http://www.bulg.org/breitts/cn/bogdan_nikolov.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by DimityrDimitrov (talk • contribs) 13:42, 13 September 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per COM:L Alan (talk) 14:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:JRKRUK 20130829 ALFRED MIODOWICZ BUSKO IMG 3314.jpg edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Here deleting administrator said "Public person, in a private situation characterizes this perfectly". One cannot agree. Look: File:JRKRUK 20130829 DONALD TUSK BUSKO IMG 3113A.jpg – this is incumbent Prime Minister of Poland, Member of the Parliament, chairman of ruling party in Poland; photographed at The Very Public Situation: during THE STATE FUNERAL. More: File:JRKRUK_20130829_EWA_KOPACZ_BUSKO_IMG_3148.jpg – this is Member of the Parliament, incumbent Marshal of the Sejm (i.e. chairman of the lower house of the Polish parliament), vice chairman of ruling party in Poland; photographed at The Very Public Situation: during THE STATE FUNERAL. Further: File:JRKRUK 20130829 GIL MIECZYSLAW BUSKOIMG 3324.jpg – Senator and File:JRKRUK 20130829 BOGDAN KLICH BUSKO IMG 3322.jpg – Senator, ex-Minister of National Defence of Poland. The same: both photographed at Public Situation: during THE STATE FUNERAL.

Please undelete JRKRUK_20130829_ALFRED_MIODOWICZ_BUSKO_IMG_3314.jpg, because it was photo of notable person, in public situation, in public place (cementery) and during a state funeral. I will be grateful if you can restore this file for me. Thank you in advance. 164.127.172.71 14:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose This is a difficult one. I think that from a purely legal perspective, this is OK -- the subject is a public person and a funeral is a public event -- he certainly must have understood that he would be photographed there. However, although it might be legal to keep it, I think that Dschwen's closing comment puts it very well "...It has nothing to do with private beliefs to respect the privacy of a mourning father." Deleting this was a matter of respect and it should stay deleted. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting Jim: "Deleting this was a matter of respect and it should stay deleted". Consensus was pretty clear in the discussion I think. -FASTILY 21:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Songsbury.jpg edit

September 13, 2013

I am requesting an undeletion of the file listed in the subject because I am the copyright owner if this image. If you need anything else, please let me know.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Songsbury (talk • contribs) 20:53, 13 September 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

: Oppose EXIF data is missing. It may have been copied from http://www.unboundband.com/images/albums/canadaday/5.jpg. If Songsbury is the copyright owner, s/he may upload the original image with metadata. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:15, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the raw image with the EXIF data because the picture was only taken as a jpg. I am the owner of unboundband.com. If you'd like me to prove that, you can send an email to admin@unboundband.com. I hope this will resolve any issue. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Songsbury (talk • contribs) 03:00, 14 September 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Digital cameras add metadata to JPG files. This file has had its EXIF data stripped. It is common for fans to upload images from the web to Commons and claim that it is their own work. So, please send an email to OTRS with the words "I am the copyright owner but my picture has been previously published" and explain the situation to them. Once verified, they will restore the file. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:16, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 21:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Infinitecoin Logo.png edit

This logo can be seen in en:Infinitecoin. It was deleted after Commons:Deletion requests/File:Infinitecoin Logo.png. It looks to me like the infinity symbol surrounded by a ring of stars and a plain ring, with gradients and shadows to make it look like a gold coin. I think it might fall below the threshold of originality in the United States. The three participants in the deletion discussion didn't raise that question. Rybec (talk) 01:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exceeds the threshold of originality for the US. If need be, this should be re-uploaded at the local wiki(s) using it under fair use -FASTILY 21:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

(File:Zur Schicht.JPG) edit

Das Foto wurde von mir selbst hergestellt, und ich gebe seine Verwendung weltweit frei unter der Lizenz {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}}. Benutzer:BrThomas(BrThomas (talk) 11:23, 14 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

You may re-upload the file, but please include a copyright tag -FASTILY 21:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Мар'ян_Крушельницький.jpg edit

File:Мар'ян_Крушельницький.jpg It's my own file, which I want to use in pages: uk:Крушельницький Мар'ян Михайлович and ru:Крушельницкий, Марьян Михайлович --Mashket (talk) 11:54, 14 September 2013 (UTC)14.09.2013[reply]

Wow, you waited a whole hour before you gave up on following proper procedures here and decided to just charge ahead and re-upload the file?
And this is your own work, you claim? And despite the subject being dead since 1963, you somehow created the photograph of him three days ago? And you're claiming that the photo that you supposedly created three days ago is covered by {{PD-Russia}}? Are you claiming that you died in 1943? Do I have to point out that none of this makes any sense whatsoever? —LX (talk, contribs) 16:02, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Dubious copyright claim. If you really are the author of the file, email your case to COM:OTRS -FASTILY 21:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Обкладинка 52.jpg edit

It's my own file, which I want to use in page: uk:Сходознавство (збірник) --Cxid (talk) 12:29, 14 September 2013 (UTC) Also:[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 21:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by My Karim edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: you are wrong to delete theses pictures . say just how can prove that its are reel information and not violation. tis personage is reel you can find all information about him in many internets sits of Comoros . so I think before you delete same thing you must ask to the auteur , you must verify it . but not to delete like this . it is very easy for you to delete but not to find and write all this. I have worked three months for write this article. and you , you delete that you want without any consultation . it abnormal . me have consulted many books , many internets sit , many persons . and you ? I can prove My Karim (talk) 00:55, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT. If you have written permission from the copyright holder to use these files, email your case to COM:OTRS to get the files restored -FASTILY 20:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Maksym Bilyi3.jpg edit

Deleted as lacking OTRS permission, however, the author of the picture, Victoria Sydorova, has already provided the necessary permission: {{Victoria Sydorova}}. It is important to undelete this file as the player pictured has died yesterday — NickK (talk) 05:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and fix it up -FASTILY 20:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Telephone_card_-_Bruxelles,_foto_Augusto_De_Luca.jpg edit

C'è stato un errore

E' stata proposta la cancellazione di questo file che ha una regolare licenza su Flickr "Attribution - Share Alike 2.0 Generic.", Controllate, grazie--Ferdinando Castaldo (talk) 15:43, 15 September 2013

 Not done Copvyio -FASTILY 20:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bear passant.svg edit

There was a problem with the first-uploaded version of this SVG file, so I fixed it, uploading a corrected version (as I've done with hundreds of SVG files before) -- but then Image:Bear passant.svg was quickly deleted and re-created. I really don't understand why, or for what purpose, the page (and the early SVG file versions) were deleted.... AnonMoos (talk) 22:48, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the top revision at the time of deletion: [4], [5]. Go ahead and re-upload as you see fit -FASTILY 05:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

again edit

I already have that file on my hard-drive, and I don't want to re-upload; I want the page and file history to accurately reflect the what was done with the page (i.e. without pointless and useless deletion). AnonMoos (talk) 05:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:GALAXY Tab 3 8.0.jpg edit

The files have been uploaded by the original uploader (SamsungPhilippines) in flickr and is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic which was even checked by flickr autobot. TheMostAmazingTechnik did a personal attack on my request for deletion of his image due to being badly described.

Done, seems legit -FASTILY 05:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Macedonian Museums-71-Pinakothiki EMS-308.jpg edit

This file was copied from http://www.museumsofmacedonia.gr/Art_Museums_and_Galleries/Pinakothiki_EMS.html, where the credits page http://www.museumsofmacedonia.gr/credits.html states that: Texts and images used in this site are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlas2000 (talk • contribs) 11:36, 16 September 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 22:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Palacio nacional medellin.JPG edit

no deberia ser borrado pues fue tomado con mi camara y no esta en ninguna pagina de internet.

Holasperras (talk) 13:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)holas perrasHolasperras (talk) 13:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose As noted in the deletion, this image appears under a different username on Skyscraper City, which is a copyrighted site. In addition it has a watermark for a third name, "Fernando Z????". If you are actually the photographer, please send a message and license explaining these things using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 22:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Coscar1917.png edit

The file not violate copyright because it was take by Instagram account of Costanza Caracciolo(costy_caracciolo on Instagram) and I was instructed by the person himself(Costanza Caracciolo)to download and upload it to wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hckixvii (talk • contribs) 14:46, 16 September 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose The image appears several places on the web that have copyrights. Even if what you say is correct, it is not clear that Costanza Caracciolo owns the copyright -- that will usually stay with the photographer. Finally, "upload it to wikipedia" is not sufficient permission -- we require a license to use the image anywhere. Please have Costanza Caracciolo send a license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 22:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:GALAXY Tab 3 8.0.jpg edit

The files have been uploaded by the original uploaders (SamsungPhilippines) and (PhilippinesLG) in flickr and is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic which was even checked by flickr autobot and undeleted by User:Fastily. TheMostAmazingTechnik did a personal attack again by requesting a speedy deletion on my request for deletion of his image due to being badly described.

All of these images contained a copyrighted software user interface with wallpaper etc. And as I know you can't relicense a copyrighted object to have a CC license. My images were speedy deleted because of this by admins as well. If an admin could comment on this license situation, it would make my happy. --TheMostAmazingTechnik (talk) 16:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to disagree as if you would look at the flickr pages you would see in the "Some Rights Reserved" corner if you expand it, would show a CC Attribution 2.0 Generic.Jeromesandilanico (talk) 17:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I saw that it's CC licensed. But the operating system (or the TouchWiz UI) is not licensed like that. And you can't simply relicense it to something different - even not Samsung. They must have one license. Best, let a admin explain that correctly. --TheMostAmazingTechnik (talk) 17:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete all: The underlying software doesn't matter here, since it is a Samsung product as well. If its being posted by an official Samsung account, I don't see what the problem is here. ViperSnake151 (talk) 18:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Firstly, TheMostAmazingTechnik is correct in that there are multiple copyrights here: 1) the render (photograph) and 2) the software UI. Undoubtedly, the purported CC license is meant to refer only to the former. Secondly, this smells like Flickrwashing. Bizarre that LG and Samsung, both well-established conglomerates and active for decades (including in Philippines) have so conveniently joined Flickr just before the upload of these images (Samsung account started August 2013; LG account stated September 2013), both with minimal or no (in the case of LG) information. Anyone could name an account "samsungph" and paste a generic corporate profile, for example. Accordingly, these need to have OTRS tickets from an xxx@lg.com/xxx@samsung.com account (or equivalent) to establish authenticity. Эlcobbola talk 18:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose The Flickr accounts do not seem to be listed at http://www.samsung.ph/ or http://www.lg.com/ph so there is no evidence that the accounts belong to these companies. LG's website mentions accounts for some other websites but NOT for Flickr, suggesting that LG doesn't have any Flickr account. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Probable flickrwashing, so I shouldn't have restored these in the first place. We're going to need written evidence of permission, submitted via COM:OTRS before these files can even be considered for restoration -FASTILY 22:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

First of all I want to clear that Im no way associated with any flickr accounts as I only searched acceptable licensed images on the search engines. Second is that I do not know how to use flickr and the only thing I know is the licensing and wiki policy on it. I even copied how it is to be done with images like File:GALAXY Note 8.0.jpg. Yes I agree with Fastily that we should all wait for an OTRS. I emaied their said emails for this and should they not reply I will willingly accept its deletion as it could be a hoax account.Jeromesandilanico (talk) 22:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kristen Stewart – Cosmopolis.jpg edit

The photo was deleted by citing the reason that no rights are available for the use of image,however i gave the necessary information about the right of the photograph along with the source.. And even the site from where the photo was taken clearly say that the image can use public-ally --Pagalzzx (talk) 19:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)--Pagalzzx (talk) 19:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC) Roshi 17 September 2013[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 22:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:SanderJanKlerkIMG 8497.JPG edit

Hello,

I would like to make an undeletion request for this file. I am the copyright holder.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151140313215088&set=a.10150243191145088.507669.675195087&type=3&theater

Also: File:Sander Jan Klerk img66371370.jpg
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10153223216150088&set=a.10150243191145088.507669.675195087&type=3&theater

Thanks! Steef1988 (talk) 09:26, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since these both appeared with a copyright notice on Facebook and we have no way of knowing that Commons User:Steef1988 is actually Facebook User:Steef1988, Commons policy is to require a license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I have emailed the information to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. The facebook is from the actor. That is why I have asked him to put my name with the pictures, so that you know I did not steal my own work. Thanks. Edit: I have asked the actor to confirm this.Steef1988 (talk) 11:00, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done If/when OTRS permission is received and confirmed, the file can be restored. INeverCry 21:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Duanegish.jpg edit

Request temporary undeletion for transfer to en.wp, where it qualifies as fair-use for article about this person (deceased). DMacks (talk) 11:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. DMacks (talk) 11:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted again. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Taylor and Kirk Douglas - 1976.jpg edit

Another DR I was not aware of. The image was an AP news photo, including all pertinent information on the front. It stated the dates, studio name, name of news agency who apparently took the photo, the names of the people in it, the name of the movie, etc. A ton of proof of no copyright notice. However, the tagging editor states, "No evidence this was published without a copyright notice." --Light show (talk) 03:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose I must be missing something here. Light show tells us that this is an AP news photo. AP routinely took care that all of its work had a copyright. After all, if its images and stories were PD, why would newspapers pay for them? In order to show that this is PD-no notice, Light show will have to show that it was distributed by AP without a notice. A subsequent unauthorized distribution by a third party does not make the image PD. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:40, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quite the opposite. First off, I'm not "telling" you anything that isn't on the original upload. Second, UPI has rarely copyrighted any of their images. Both We Hope and Moonriddengirl have confirmed this with cited sources, which they may still have. Nor are we talking about third party "distribution," but simply someone "selling" an original press release photo. They don't need "authorization." --Light show (talk) 21:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
UPI is not the same organization as AP. I can't see the image, but I'd be careful about wire photo copies -- I think those would be printed out at the other end, and I'm not sure those copies would have copyright notices (and those copies may not have been distributed). Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As Carl suggests, news service images that were distributed by wire had special handling -- they would not have the usual (C) on the back, but the newspapers' contracts with AP required the newspapers to pay attention to copyright. If someone lifted one of those photos from a file and sold it without a copyright notice, it would not make the image PD. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even though AP and UPI photos appear to be without notice, the Library of Congress legal department cautions about their free use:

"In an attempt to determine if UPI registered any copyrights and if those copyrights were renewed, Specialists in the Prints and Photographs Division of the Library of Congress searched the Copyright Office files. It was found that only a few images were registered for copyright and those copyrights were not renewed. However, the Library’s legal office has advised the Division that photographs published with proper copyright notices between 1923-1963 may be protected if properly renewed, while works published after 1963 and unpublished photographs in the collection may be protected even if they were not registered with the Copyright Office. Additionally, researchers should be advised that determining the copyright status of photographs can be problematic because of the lack of pertinent information, and researchers often have to make calculated risk decisions concerning the appropriate use of an image when its copyright status is unknown or ambiguous. Privacy and publicity rights may also apply."

"In an attempt to determine if AP/Wide World registered any copyrights and if those copyrights were renewed, Specialists in the Prints and Photographs Division of the Library of Congress searched the Copyright Office files. It was found that only a few images were registered for copyright and those copyrights were not renewed.

"However, the Library’s legal office has advised the Division that photographs published with proper copyright notices between 1923-1963 may be protected if properly renewed, while works published after 1963 and unpublished photographs in the collection may be protected even if they were not registered with the Copyright Office.

"Additionally, researchers should be advised that determining the copyright status of photographs can be problematic because of the lack of pertinent information, and researchers often have to make calculated risk decisions concerning the appropriate use of an image when its copyright status is unknown or ambiguous. Privacy and publicity rights may also apply."

This what I have from last year. We hope (talk) 13:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Question If a photo was distributed to a newspaper, would it then be enough if the newspaper was renewed, or would the photo have to be renewed separately? If a photo was published in multiple newspapers, was it then enough if one of the newspapers was renewed, or did all newspapers have to be renewed? --Stefan4 (talk) 13:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • That can be a thorny question, but generally only the actual copyright owner (or owners, if multiple parties had interests in the copyright) had standing to renew. Or, the newspapers would have to claim they were acting as "authorized agents" for the copyright owners. That would be likely for stuff contributed primarily to that newspaper, but I doubt it would apply for AP photos (as the agent would have large authority over the copyright itself). Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:31, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Renewals are only relevant for works published prior to 1964. For a 1976 photo, it never needed to be registered nor renewed for its copyright to be valid today. It only needed to have a copyright notice on all (or at least most) published copies. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:31, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done PD status can't be confirmed. INeverCry 17:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Streisand - agency photo.jpg edit

The DR for this image made no sense at all. It was a full and obvious publicity photo, with borders, and detailed description information. It included her name, the name of her PR agency and even their street address. She was posed, staring at the camera. From the name of the PR firm, it is easily found that it was from early in her career. It was even autographed, as many publicity photos were when given out. Yet the tagging editor still called all of that and its description "guesswork!" --Light show (talk) 04:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This website shows them as her PR agency in 1966 for her tour, "An Evening with Barbra Streisand. Also shows same hair style and age appearance. --Light show (talk) 06:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the mere existence of a 1966 tour shows that she wasn't still with the same PR agency past 1978. And hairstyle and age appearance are highly subjective. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:55, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
She stayed with the PR agency, but it went through many name changes, which means we can tell that this photo was produced by 1972 at the latest. We went through all of this in its last undeletion request a month ago. I believe the outstanding issues were the possibility that it wasn't published and the possibility that there may have been a copyright notice on the back of the photo. I don't believe either should give rise to significant doubt, but not everyone agreed.
I do feel that the last undeletion request was closed poorly, concluding there was "general agreement" that the evidence for the image's freedom was grossly insufficient, when only one person had said that (or anything like that). --Avenue (talk) 11:35, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's no evidence regarding the date or manner of publication of the image. The image upload did not present the back of the image; and nothing about the physical photo itself provided any information about the date or manner of the original publication (or even that the image had been previously published). Just because many publicity photos have fallen into the public domain doesn't justify a blanket presumption -- "Wikipedia Commons, where 90% of the images are free for reuse" isn't the guiding principle. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (talk) 14:11, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see the image, but is it the same one as on this page, which has a copyright notice with "CPC-FG-1" on it? If so it would seem as though the copyright would be claimed by Columbia Pictures Corporation, and was part of a "Funny Girl" series, which would point to a 1968 date. There are several ebay examples of similar copyright notices on publicity material such as here and here which show clear copyright notices on those distributed copies. As such, it would seem likely that those published versions were distributed with copyright notices. Unless it can be shown to be an earlier photo simply used as part of that publicity campaign, I think we would need pretty solid evidence that this particular copy was also distributed, without a copyright notice (front or back), and that it's likely a number of copies were distributed the same way. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's the same photo. --Light show (talk) 16:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, same photo, although our copy seemed much better exposed, and obviously did not have the copyright notice in that spot. I'm not sure I would go as far as Carl - to me it still seems fairly likely that our file came from a copy without a copyright notice, and I think the official distribution of even one such copy should be enough to make it PD. I note that both the linked eBay examples retain the copyright notice on the actual photo, as well as including an additional notice in the text printed below it, neither of which is true for our image. But his discovery raises significant doubt for me, so unless we can find clear evidence of authorized distribution without a copyright notice, I agree the file should stay deleted. --Avenue (talk) 20:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another option, considering the studio is still selling the movie, is to contact en:Columbia Pictures (Sony) and offer to restore their "publicity photo" if they make a sizable donation to WP ;) --Light show (talk) 22:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If say a couple thousand copies were distributed with a copyright notice, and a one-off copy was distributed without one, the courts would generally deem that copyright was not lost. They might consider that any actions made on the assumed lack of copyright were not infringement or at least quite mitigated, if the accused infringer didn't know any better, but they would not rule that copyright was lost if it was only a relatively few copies which lacked notice. What markings are on our version? Are there any dates? Particularly ones which would indicate the publication of that copy in particular? A copy made at the time which had remained private until a warehouse was cleaned out in 1999 would not help, for example. There is at least one other photo taken during that session (see here). If these were previously published (and already public domain) photos used during the Funny Girl publicity campaign, then the copyright notice would not mean anything, but... I'd be very cautious based on that copyright claim. It's also possible someone just airbrushed out the notice when making a copy later on, as well (either not caring or wanting the notice to be elsewhere). Or the different exposures could indicate a separate printing, who knows. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The interesting thing is that if WP contacted some of the studios or networks about their publicity photos they would almost say OK. I say "almost," because while most of their photos have boilerplate text, like this one, which "grants permission" to the press, they specifically exclude it being used for "advertising purposes." That's partly because they don't want anyone misleading a customer with a celebrity photo on a product or ad. If there was a commons license that likewise restricted its use from advertising for re-users, in effect copying the "permission" that studios already have given to the press, they might give us the same permission. After all, it helps them. Is that possible? --Light show (talk) 04:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct that the "advertising purposes" is typically to protect personality aka publicity rights, which are separate from the copyright. But while such organizations would almost always be OK with the photo's usage on Wikipedia, and usually would have no problem licensing it that way, they usually have a much different take on making it truly "free", i.e. usable by anyone for any purpose (although still constrained by the publicity rights, which are not licensed at all). We can't accept "wikipedia-only" licenses though, which is the usual result of asking someone for permission for use on Wikipedia. They also may have an issue with using it for commercial purposes (a separate concept, in copyright law, from "commercial purposes" in a publicity rights context), and may not wish to risk the confusion that "free for everyone" may cause someone to assume they can use it in ways which violates publicity rights, or may not want to give up copyright in case publicity rights have expired in a jurisdiction (they often expire at death, but it can differ state-by-state, with e.g. California now granting a longer term). But, if you want to try using one of the email templates to have the copyright owner email permission to COM:OTRS, that would be great. But there's really no modifying the central premise, that works must be licensed to anyone, for whatever purpose, and with no other restrictions which are based on the copyright itself. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done PD status can't be confirmed. INeverCry 17:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

Sabrina-lps.jpg edit

I (1944-11-04-lps) hereby affirm that this photo (Sabrina-lps.jpg) is a combination of two photos created by me. The two photos are provided by a yahoo blogger (Phyllis Kwok) with her consent. Two photos were100% taken by this blogger herself after two live shows in 2019 and 2010 accordingly. It is sure they are not taken from any commercial and official photo albums or videos, they are totally private owned and shared for the wiki page.

Detailed information has been sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. 1944-11-04-lps (talk) 16:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC) 2013-09-17[reply]

 Not done If/when COM:OTRS permission is received and confirmed, the file will be restored. INeverCry 17:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:CoCo and the Butterfields - Warriors Release.jpg edit

Unfairly deleted.--Alphabetica (talk) 00:23, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The file comes from http://www.flickr.com/photos/danfordshowan/8901908305/sizes/l/in/photostream/, where it's marked All Rights Reserved, and the author is given as Danford Showan. In order for it to be on Commons, we would need the Flickr license to be changed to a free license, or for Danford Showan to provide permission to COM:OTRS. INeverCry 00:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake. The Flickr license has now been changed to CC Attribution, Noncommercial, No Derivative Works, meaning it can be returned to Wikimedia Commons. Feel free to check. --Alphabetica (talk) 01:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately we do not allow licenses that restrict commercial use or the creation of derivative works. See Commons:Licensing for more information. MorganKevinJ(talk) 01:57, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very well then, the license is now simply Creative Commons. Presumably it now meets Wikimedia requirements. --Alphabetica (talk) 04:28, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Verified that the license is now CC-BY-2.0, and as such, support un-deletion. JesseW (talk) 04:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done I've restored the file and updated the file page with the needed tags, etc. INeverCry 05:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:STU Great Hall.jpg edit

The photo "STU Great Hall" I uploaded was deleted. I forwarded an e-mail to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, showing that the author of the photo Zeng Jianping gave me the permission to use it. Could you please restore the picture? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrysanthemum and Sword (talk • contribs) 00:26, September 18, 2013‎ (UTC)

 Not done If/when COM:OTRS permission is received and confirmed, the file will be restored. INeverCry 17:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Bright Simons Presenting at the World Economic Forum Summit.jpg edit

Link provided as advised: http://www.flickr.com/photos/worldeconomicforum/9726088837/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phaedox (talk • contribs) 09:48, September 18, 2013‎ (UTC)

 Not done The image is under a non-commercial license on Flickr. Commons requires licenses that allow commercial use. See COM:L for acceptable licenses. INeverCry 18:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Vahur Joala edit

This was a bad faith deletion. Uploaders are not obliged to provide high resolution and/or EXIF. Please don't nominate images for deletion without reasonable doupt, e.g. if the same images are available on the internet with different attribution. (Also note the note on DR page by some upset anonymous user, probably the uploader.) 193.40.10.181 18:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose There's no bad faith at all here. This is a completely routine action. When we see a new uploader who gives us a batch of small images with no EXIF, it is reasonable to assume that the uploader may not understand the rules. We take such action several times every day. In this case, several of the images, including File:Sten Kalder 1.jpg and File:Rasmus Haugasmägi.jpg, appear in several places on the web with a copyright notice, so that the nom and the closing Admin had more than reasonable doubt -- they had proof. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In general, in what sense is this reasonable to assume that the new uploader may not understand the rules? Is it less reasonable to assume that if new user gives you a batch of high resolution "own works" with EXIF taken from random internet soruce? Possibly you should reconsider this routine.
Anyways, to prevent confusion then the deleting admin might want to give the real reason next time (e.g. there's proof too). 193.40.10.181 21:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The easiest way to get high resolution works with EXIF is to shoot them yourself. And if you do copy them from somewhere else, the EXIF frequently has enough information to make it pretty obvious.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"...in what sense is this reasonable to assume..." - It's reasonable because it works. Please remember that the rule on Commons is that a file must be proven beyond a significant doubt to be OK -- it is guilty unless proven innocent. We get around 8,000 new images every day. About a quarter of those are eventually deleted for a variety of reasons. Most of that work is done by a dozen Admins. In order to deal with the high volume in a reasonable way, we make certain assumptions. In the vast majority of cases of a batch of low-res files with no EXIF, they are taken from the web. Fewer than 1/10 of 1% of all deletions are reversed here on review.
In this case, the deleting Admin did not know anything more than that they were low-res, no EXIF files -- he had no "real reason" to give. I found the appearance on the Web after I read this UnDR. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done There is no tangible proof that the uploader is the copyright holder. If you are the uploader, please email OTRS -FASTILY 05:59, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Bear passant.svg yet again another time around edit

Could someone actually look at the specific situation with this particular file -- instead of delivering a standardized generic boilerplate response that has nothing to do with the specific case of this particular file, and then closing the section on this page without any useful comments or discussion??

There was an unnecessary and semi-stupid deletion conducted on the file, which was then almost immediately re-created. It would be nice if the deletion could be undone, so that the file-version upload history and image description page edit history could be accurate. Thank you for your attention to this matter. AnonMoos (talk) 02:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I have restored the file history, as per the reasons given in this request. In particular, the original reason for deletion (broken SVG) was gone already at the time of deletion. There are now two working versions of the file, which differ in nominal size, but have no visible difference. --rimshottalk 05:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Luis Losada Pescador.jpg edit

El archivo de FOTO Luis Losada Pescador.jpg de https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Losada_Pescador está realizado por mí y es mío y de Luis Losada Pescador, por lo que éste lo ha empleado en su otra página web http://www.watchtvspain.com/?page_id=37 también.

Esta foto es mía.

Si hubiera problemas, puedo adjuntar otra foto también mía, pero si alguien la coge y la usa en otro sitio, la ha copiado de aquí, de Wikipedia.

--Mariamartinezlopez (talk) 11:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 08:26, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Bright_Simons_Presenting_at_the_World_Economic_Forum_Summit.jpg edit

The source of the image is here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/worldeconomicforum/9726088837/

As can be seen, permission is available for the release of this image into the Wikimedia commons pool.

The source image has a CC-BY-NC-SA license. We can take CC-BY and CC-BY-SA licenses, but none of the CC licenses with "NC" in them. See Commons:Licensing. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done NC licenses are forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 08:26, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Znak dosta.jpg edit

There is OTRS permission for this file (ticket:2013091710019793 in info-cs queue). --Harold (talk) 13:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Please add license and OTRS ticket. INeverCry 16:58, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:אסתרית בלצן.JPG edit

I received an OTRS permissiin see Ticket:2013083110002838. Thanks. Hanay (talk) 15:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done INeverCry 17:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Attribution-TRGov-Military edit

{{Attribution-TRGov-Military}} and the files associated with it were speedy deleted by Jcb due to problems with the Ticket:2012071110005537. While I think Jcb jumped the gun and mass deleted files prematurely, I am not contesting the actual file deletions at this point. I however request the license itself and either the file description pages be undeleted or I be provided with the information on each of them with a list of the files. I ask this information so I can work with tr.wikipedia community in an attempt to try to get a free license permission to TRGov-Military related files. I am told the files involved are listed "here (except the last one)". Again I am not requesting the undeletion of the files, rather their description pages (or a compilation of their content elsewhere).

Licenses should not be deleted if they are invalid. They should instead be marked as invalid explaining the reason. Normally OTRS files are given a week but not in this case.

-- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 16:28, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The ticket does not contain a valid permission. The last message in the ticket dates from more than a year ago. Normally we grant one month to sort thing out after we receive something at OTRS. We gave you an additional year. Not sure why you call that 'speedy'. Jcb (talk) 16:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't involved with the original ticket. I merely worked on the template makeup. An OTRS member verified the ticket and it remained as such for about a year until last week when I asked if the ticket was really valid. Yes, it was I who reported the possible problem. Before I could verify it with a native speaker you decided google translate was good enough. I was given an actual 2 or 3 days (IIRC) to sort the issue and you closed it in about 3 hours after it was posted on the OTRS noticeboard. It baffles me why you do not want to undelete content that contain nothing more than metadata. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 16:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Already restored, making this request moot -FASTILY 07:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:P094051987fifieldchurchf3211000240x167.jpg edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The Fifield Bavant photos were all taken by me on 2009-04-05, some with the horse in a different position as in http://www.broadchalke.info/fifieldbavantchurch.php which is my website (note copyright John Burrough which is my real name). I uploaded Fifield_Bavant_Church_5th_April_2009.jpg to Wikipedia Fifield Bavant page on 2013-09-11 in a smaller size and then uploaded P094051987fifieldchurchf3211000240x167.jpg on 2013-09-13 to Commons but it's the same as Fifield_Bavant_Church_5th_April_2009.jpg in Wikipedia. They are free for anyone to use. I donated http://www.chalkevalley.org.uk/site/images/home-scroller-23.jpg to the Chalke Valley Church website (to Mr Roe tel. +44(0)1725519242 who passed the cd on to the website administrator). All were taken with the same C770UZ Olympus camera. Email sent affirming copyright using WP:CONSENT form 12th September 2013 about 19:25 UK time. Chalkeman (talk) 17:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 07:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ingrid1.jpg edit

Below I attach the explicit statements by Ingrid "In-Grid" Alberini that she wants to change her photos on wikipedia pages and that she owns the images she provided, Upon my request she also sent them to photosubmission@wikimedia.org but to no avail so far.

It's been a while that we are trying to upload and change the images, but they are being continuously deleted despite our trying to comply with all your procedures,

Please help!

Thanks,

Eldar

Ingrid Alberini

Quel quadro con la foto va Tolto sopratt la foto in tutti I wiki

14/09/2013 16:43 Ingrid Alberini

Vorrei queste

14/09/2013 16:43 Ingrid Alberini

Possible?

Эльдар Саттаров

Ingrid sono tolte le foto! Non me le permettono di usare... Li devi mandare te a questo indirizzo: "... photosubmission@wikimedia.org . If you choose to email the content, please include the photograph in question, along with a statement that you own the copyright on it and an agreement to release it under a free license."

Ingrid Alberini

Riguardo a mie foto wikipedia ho SOLO mandato mia foto a questo indirizzophotosubmission@wikimedia.org


photosubmission@wikimedia.org


Va bene?

Eldareh (talk) 03:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC) 21/09/2013[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 07:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Motor elétrico de corrente contínua..png edit

Also:

http://www.villate.org/doc/fisica2/fisica2_20120908.pdf

image from 2.5 share-alike document , i dont known who is the author , probably the image is from internet and its free , because the teacher used a lot of images from wikipédia too!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thepalerider2012 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 21 September 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose It is true that the document has a CC-BY-SA license on it, but there are no attributions for any of the photographs. That means that if the author actually did use a lot of images from WP, then the document is probably a copyright violation, since most WP images require attribution. If that is correct, we cannot use it because the source is a copyvio. Also, I note that you claimed the images were your own work. That is a violation of the CC-BY license on the document, so there is certainly one layer of copyvio here and probably two. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

so if i give the atribuition can you revert the images? (Thepalerider2012 (talk) 20:53, 21 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

I would still oppose it -- I think that the author of your source document has taken a lot of images from various places including WP and ignored their licenses which require attribution. For example, on page 53 of the document, the Commons image File:PlanePair2.jpg whose license requires attribution is shown without attribution. This means that your source is itself a copyvio and cannot be trusted as a source. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:14, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Questionable source -> questionable files -> Not ok for Commons -FASTILY 01:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Studienseminar St. Michael Logo.jpg edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The uploaded logo is not a trademark. It was designed for representative and advertising purpose. The as wide as possible spreading of the logo is in the intention of the copyright holder. Furthermore the copyright holder gave me the oral permission to use all picture files of the indicated homepage. Cooperator (talk) 19:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Per Jim. -FASTILY 01:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Old Mekhitar monument.jpg edit

Please restore the following pages: Reason: This is an old picture from 1931, which was taken in Cyprus just before the new monument was erected. I cannot understand why it was deleted. NeoCy (talk) 06:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose The deletion comment reads:
"I don't believe this is the uploaders work. You can clearly see text behind the image indicating it's been scanned from a newspaper or magazine. The user who uploaded it has a history of uploading copyrighted works and not engaging in conversation. Seems readily apparent this is a copyright violation, though from where is unclear, and the user's other image licenses must be called into question."

This is obviously not the uploader's own work, as he or she claims. 1931 is nowhere near old enough to assume that it is PD because of age, so it looks to me if the deletion was correct. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim. Alan (talk) 23:04, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Christian Jungersen.JPG contains no copyright violation and should not be deleted edit

The file Christian Jungersen.JPG is a photo of me, Christian Jungersen. I commissioned the photo from photographer Jan Grarup. The photographer has been paid to hand over all copyright to me. If you feel uncertain about my identity please send an email to christian at christianjungersen.com. Please undelete.

Thank you, Christian --Chris4321 (talk) 14:36, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Info: Commons:OTRS: --Yikrazuul (talk) 21:36, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


 Not done per Jim. Alan (talk) 22:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Gon_Grid_Cut.png edit

Deleted because copyright status was unclear. But was my own work. I suspect a copyright tag was there but not recognized by a more recent robot. Because it was up for 3 years. -- Portolanero (talk) 20:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Support. Going by Google's cached version, it did not have an actual copyright tag, but {{Cc-by-3.0}} was clearly mentioned. Should have been fixed, not deleted. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Undeleted and license template according description applied. --JuTa 22:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

Aaroh.jpg edit

It is entirely my own work and I own every rights to it. --Nabahat (talk) 22:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Signature of Nabahat Khan.png edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: These are entirely my own work and I own every rights to it. 

Nabahat (talk) 22:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: I have restored both. However, I noticed that on File:Aaroh.png, you initially had the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license on there but removed it minutes later. Do you confirm that you agree to the terms of the license? Otherwise the image will be deleted again. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Salam Jawed Concert2.jpg edit

Re Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_of_User:Salamjawed: DR closing statement by admin Fastily («blatantly out of scope. unused personal images») is somewhat equivocal when applied to a public performace before a live audience (South Asian Bands Festival). -- Tuválkin ✉ 10:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the artist or the festival is notable (not necessarily in Wikipedia sense, them being good examples of local culture is enough for us), it should probably not be regarded as a personal photo. Does the focus, the quality or something like that make the image less interesting? Is the festival itself uninteresting or do we have enough photos from it? --LPfi (talk) 14:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How can an international public event, where to travel musicians from thousands of kilometers away, be non-notable?! Besides, note the oxymoron alledged by the deleting admin: That this (and indeed all these by the same usr) photos taken at public events and promo shots are private photos and should be discarded. -- Tuválkin ✉ 18:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose File:Salam Jawed Concert2.jpg is a pic of an unidentified group of people taking a group pic in a lobby, with Jawed on the left. They're wearing regular street clothes, t-shirts, etc. File:Salam Jawed Concert.jpg is a very small image of a band on stage (596 × 289). You can't really make out their faces and they're unidentified, though I would guess that Jawed is one of them. They are wearing pants and t-shirts. The background of the stage itself would be a possible keeper for me if the image wasn't so tiny and we could see it in some decent detail. Also, if there were elements to either image that showed "local culture" I would say restore, but there are none.

There are also permission/copyright concerns with these. Salam Jawed himself appears in these, and several of them look to be done by a pro photog, and none look to be shot by Salam himself. The small sizes and lack of EXIF are problematic, especially as the whole group of photos (Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_of_User:Salamjawed) looks to have been uploaded with the intent of promotion of Salam Jawed. INeverCry 18:24, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per INeverCry. --Alan (talk) 23:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Mariselaverena.jpg edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The picture that was deleted was taken by a friend of mine who is part of Marisela Verena's staff. I have his permission to use it on Marisela Verena's Wiki Page. He is not a professional photographer, he is just very good at taking pictures. Georgina Fernandez (talk) 02:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 18:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Ola Lauritzson 2012.jpg edit

This image is owned by Ola Lauritzson himself and I helped him upload it. It is a photo for the press and anyone can use it. He wanted to update the article about him with a new image of him. This one i taken in 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slejra (talk • contribs) 10:18, 23 September 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Not done OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 18:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Casa-amarilla(1).jpg edit

Please restore the following page:

Reason: The image was taken by Yellow House staff after the building was remodeled. Dehnara (talk) 15:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done A source showing sufficient free licensing, or OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 18:40, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:P 0072 a Capit+ín de Fragata Hector Ratto.jpg edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The picture was taken from a book published by Estudios Históricos Navales in Argentina for over 25 years. Therefore, the use is already free. Also, Estudios Históricos Navales is an agency of the Armada Argentina and part of his staff is working on Wikipedia with username dehnara that was where he got this photo. Dehnara (talk) 15:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose The book was apparently published in 1961. It is still protected by copyright. While the law does say that photographs are PD after 20 years, it does not speak to the question of whether you can take them out of a copyrighted book. I would guess not, but perhaps someone can cite case law on the subject. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Files are still protected by copyright -FASTILY 21:44, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

WMF-VE-reference-steps edit

This was a list of links to be transcluded into a sequence of screenshots used by WMF to propose changes to mw:VisualEditor Reference Dialog: File:WMF-VE-reference-step1.jpg, File:WMF-VE-reference-step2.jpg, File:WMF-VE-reference-step3a.jpg, File:WMF-VE-reference-step3b.jpg, File:WMF-VE-reference-step4.jpg, File:WMF-VE-reference-t-add-parameters.jpg. The purpose of the list was to allow commentators to navigate between the mockups. It is transcluded onto each screen image page. The list was deleted this morning, with the rationale:

09:48, 23 September 2013 Jameslwoodward (talk | contribs) deleted page WMF-VE-reference-steps (Empty or single image gallery; please see Commons:Galleries: content was: "Step 1 · Step 2 · Step 3a · :File:..." (and the only co...)

Grounds for restoring:

  1. This is not a gallery. Perhaps this wasn't sufficiently clear to the deleting admin.
  2. To the extent that it is useful for WMF to consult on proposed UI changes, this serves a useful purpose.
  3. It is transcluded into six other pages, and the deleting admin has apparently not removed these transclusions.
  4. It wouldn't have been sufficient to upload this file to mediawiki rather than commons, because WMF's developer had decided to upload the proposed screenshots to commons . Arguably all the screenshots fail the Commons:Project_scope#Must_be_realistically_useful_for_an_educational_purpose test, in which case they should be deleted too, and the developer advised to upload them directly to mediawiki instead.
  5. Any advice about how to avoid this situation in future would be welcome. Pointillist (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I have taken the liberty of using numbers on your points to respond to them individually.
1) It is a gallery. Any Commons page without a prefix (File:, User:, Commons:, etc.) is a gallery. Galleries are solely for collections of images.
2) That may be. It may be eligible with the "Commons:" prefix, but not as a gallery. If it is being transcluded then perhaps it should have the "Template:" prefix.
3) We see approximately 100 new gallery pages every day created by users who are not auto-patrollers. 90% of them are out of scope and are deleted. Since we do not expect gallery pages to be linked or transcluded, we do not check "what links here".
4) OK
5) At one level, perhaps better education of new users would help. It was obvious to me that this was not an appropriate Commons gallery, but not to Pointillist. If the page had an appropriate prefix, the problem would not have happened. On another level, I don't think we should worry about avoiding this kind of situation in the future. I doubt that we have an UnDR arising from actions by Admins doing New Page Patrol more than once every ten days or more. We delete approximately 2,000 pages every day. Ten Admins do almost all of that work. Asking them to change procedures to avoid problems at the one tenth of one percent level would be counter productive. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Per Jim. Inappropriate use of galleries -FASTILY 21:44, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Aaroh.jpg edit

Entirely my own work and would like to use it for User page image. Thanks. Regards.--Nabahat (talk) 06:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moot. If Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aaroh.png closes as keep, I will restore this for you as well. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:40, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Franco Ricciardiello.jpg edit

I am the author of the picture--Sans souci (talk) 21:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may re-upload, but please include a license tag -FASTILY 21:44, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Reba Toney.jpg edit

On September 18, 2013 you deleted my photo File:Reba Toney.jpg . At the time, I was new to Wiki Commons and misread what Wiki was asking me to do. I thought that I had to add all sites where the photo could be found. The photo taken is personal property that has been used as publicity multiple times. How can I go about appealing the photo deletion? Step by step instructions would be helpful. Thanks :) Also, this photo is free to the public, so would it need wiki copyright proof? --A.stuartchambers (talk) 21:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 22:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Funny photo of friend.jpg edit

In the DR closing (here), admin explains that this needs to be deleted because «guy in the middle has a huge glare spot right over his head from the sun. This is blatantly out of scope», in reply of my keep vote about this being an «Unique case among Category:Growing from head photos.» This shows that closing admin could not be arsed to even read the keep vote, as uncomprehension was shown, not disagreement. Please reevaluate. -- Tuválkin ✉ 08:39, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to each of your individual votes one by one in that DR, but I didn't take the time to read them? I guess you just felt like being unnecessarily rude here. I stand by the deletion. INeverCry 22:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No need to feel any rudeness, I’m here to help create a really awesome free media repository, not to chum up — hopefully you are too. So, you addressed my arguments in that really long collective DR, supporting both keep and delete votes, not because I’m a really nice guy who deserves to have his arguments heard because of said niceness but, I hope, because maybe what I have to say makes sense. (That’s why I read with care and attention even opinions of Commons regulars whom I find morally dispeakable but who are smart and productive nonetheless, and I tend to skip the blather of others who would be probably favorite goof-around buddies should we ever meet in meatspace but who sadly use Commons’ talk pages to act out the proverbial classroom clown.)
That said, it is obvious that you either didn’t read my keep-vote argument for this one, or you decided to ignore it. I said that this photo showing the sun shining behind a guy’s head fits among Category:Growing from head photos as a singular such case — and your closing did not reply, say, about how the sun should not be considered akin to wall-mounted antlers or some such, you simply based your decision on boilerplate photographic quality, no reply about that very specific and margin possible interest of this photo. Thence my undeletion request.
It's always better to be respectful and courteous when speaking with others here and anywhere. Making rude and snarky comments doesn't get your point across better, it just makes others less likely to listen to you and consider your arguments. As for the image, the glare from the sun obscures most of the guy's head and face and over-exposes the top third of the image. The other images in the category you referred to are clearer and higher in overall quality. INeverCry 23:21, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We do keep blurry photos to illustrate bad photography — how else would it be possible to illustrate bad photography? Bad photography is a subject that Commons should be able to provide illustrations for, just like any other. Of course those examples must be retricted to carefully selected examples, suitably categorized, and kept away from denotative illustrations (although paired up with correct equivalents for comparison). Or am I wrong? -- Tuválkin ✉ 22:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Teaching photography is of extremely high interest to Commons and not out of scope! Analysing other people's mistakes and learning from them is one way to improve your photography skills. A collection of photographs that show mistakes in photography is useful and highly eductative. This is the reason why I created Category:Photographic mishaps. Deleting them is counter-productive. Even without knowing this specific picture I tend to  Keep. --Sitacuisses (talk) 12:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Aside from my opinions above on scope, another issue I have with the "mistakes" approach is the lack of sensitivity to uploaders when there are identifiable people involved in private situations like this. The above image is a "funny personal pic" taken in a backyard; how would the photographer and subjects of this image feel about having their image kept on Commons solely to illustrate how badly it was done, and what mistakes were made? INeverCry 18:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per Jim. Nothing to add. --Alan (talk) 23:55, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: No consensus to restore. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Juan+Mata+Chelsea.jpg edit

Letzo (talk) 01:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind giving a reason? --rimshottalk 06:06, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close, no reason request. Please make a new request with a valid reason for undeleting the file -FASTILY 18:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Aaroh.jpg edit

It is entirely my own work and I own every rights to it. I'm using it for User page image. Kindly Undeletion it. Thanks. --Nabahat (talk) 06:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose This is the company logo of www.aaroh.co.in. We would need COM:OTRS permission from them to host this on Commons under a free license. INeverCry 06:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm owner of www.aaroh.co.in. That you can verify from contact page or www.aaroh.co.in/aboutus.php. --Nabahat (talk) 06:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are mentioned on each of those pages, but anybody can copy a name and an image. Therefore we need the above mentioned OTRS verification. Please send e-mail according to the linked instructions. Or you could confirm your Commons account by mentioning it on the aaroh.co.in website. --LPfi (talk) 08:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I'm mentioning Commons account on www.aaroh.co.in/contactus.php. Kindly verify and restore image. Thanks. Regards. --Nabahat (talk) 11:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following comment was removed by User:Nabahat

"Also note that company logos are not appropriate for user pages. Information there must be relevant to your activity on Commons. See COM:ADVERT. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)"[reply]

Nabahat has been on Commons since 2009, but has only 80 edits here, so I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that this action was unintentional. Intentionally changing or deleting other editors' comments is a serious violation of our rules. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Since the only possible use for this logo is at User:Nabahat and as I said above, that would probably be a violation of our rules, I think this image is probably out of scope and should not be restored. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, 1st sorry for that comment deletion as I joined in 2009 but started seriously about just couple of months. And I read that COM:ADVERT and to me its look like, it is for 'General pages' but if we using it on 'User page' its allowed as I'm just want to mention my profession in my talks page not as advertisement but as personal info. I hope that is allowed until it is used just as representation of my info there, not as advert. I hope it will be restored. Thanks. With all regards. --Nabahat (talk) 15:18, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you are the uploader, please email COM:OTRS to get your file restored. -FASTILY 18:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Otto Drakenberg CEO ArcusGruppen.jpg edit

We do have permission from both the photographer (Karin Svensson, karin.svensson.ibild@gmail.com) and the subject of the picture (Otto Drakenberg, CEO of ArcusGruppen, kontakt@ottodrakenberg.com) to use this picture. We kindly ask you to undelete this picture.

Sincerely,

--Proficio (talk) 13:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The image appears at http://e24.no/naeringsliv/naa-har-gammel-dansk-blitt-svorsk-for-754-mill-kroner/20320805 with an attribution reading "Foto: Christian Hatt". The Commons description says that Otto Drakenberg, the subject, is both the author and the source. We are told above that the author is Karin Svensson. In order to clarify this, we will need a license from the actual photographer -- Hatt, Svensson, or possibly someone else -- using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. This is standard policy when an image has appeared on a copyrighted site before it was uploaded to Commons. If that license is given, then after the image is restored, the image description should be changed to reflect the correct author and source..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you are the uploader, please email COM:OTRS to get your file restored. -FASTILY 18:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Anahit Stamp.jpg edit

This image was deleted as it was claimed that it was a "derivative work from non-free sculpture", which is a false claim. It was an Armenian stamp (under {{PD-Armenia}}) of the cast bronze head of the statue of Goddess Anahit. The statue dates back to the 4th century BC, and cannot possibly be under copyright. Please undelete accordingly. Thank you, Chaojoker (talk) 14:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 18:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Portada original del sainet El virgo de Vicenteta..jpg edit

  • Català: File:Portada original del sainet El virgo de Vicenteta..jpg

Original cover of a book published in the 1800. Obvioulsy in PD, besides, only text and simple geometrial forms.--Coentor (talk) 17:07, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The file was deleted as missing both a source and license tag, but you may re-upload the file ([6], [7]) if you have both those pieces of information -FASTILY 18:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Michael Pocalyko DESA.jpg edit

I am the author of the biography of Michael Pocalyko (BLP) that appears in the English-language Wikipedia at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Pocalyko.

As an important part of that Wikipedia article, in March 2012 I uploaded the file Michael Pocalyko DESA.jpg to Wikimedia Commons. The file is a photograph of the subject of the biography.

The Wikimedia Commons file Michael Pocalyko DESA.jpg was deleted on 20 September 2013 by Fastily, flagged as "no permission given."

As a result of this action, I wrote to the photographer, who had released the copyright under Creative Commons License even before I uploaded the photograph in March 2012.

The photographer, Carl Daniel Cox of Rockville, Maryland USA, is not a registered user of Wikipedia. Therefore at my request he has now twice written an e-mail to the permissions-commons e-mail address. He reports that has not received a ticket number or any e-mail response from that address.

The full text of Carl Daniel Cox's e-mail granting permission is quoted here:

From Carl Daniel Cox <carl@carlcoxphoto.com>
To: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org
Subject: OTRS - File:Michael Pocalyko DESA.jpg
Attached: Michael Pocalyko DESA.jpg
I am writing about the file Michael Pocalyko DESA.jpg, deleted on 20 September 2013 from Wikimedia Commons at
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Michael_Pocalyko_DESA.jpg
The file is appended to this e-mail.
I request that this file be uploaded and restored to Wikimedia Commons.
I hereby affirm that I, Carl Daniel Cox, am the creator and sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the digital photograph Michael Pocalyko DESA.jpg.
I agree to publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported" and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).
I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.
I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.
I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me.
I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.
Carl Daniel Cox
Carl Cox Photography
16709 Bethayres Rd
Rockville, Maryland 20855 USA
carl@carlcoxphoto.com
www.carlcoxphoto.com
Copyright Holder
September 22, 2013

If independent confirmation is required, the photographer can be contacted as indicated above, and he will affirm this information, that permission has been given under the Creative Commons license.

I request that a reviewer/administrator could please (1) undelete the subject file and (2) restore the Michael Pocalyko Wikipedia article, so that the photograph appears in its original place above the infobox.

Thank you.

--SSHammond (talk) 19:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done per ticket:2013092310002101 --Alan (talk) 22:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:IMac 2012.png edit

Hello, I've sent the german OTRS team (permissions-commons-de@wikimedia.org) an email with the permission ~ 1 week ago. They didn't respond yet. I also added the permission on the image page.

The important part of the email (in German): "Hallo, hiermit möchte ich die Lizenz angeben, welche für die Datei File:IMac 2012.png ausgesprochen wurde. "Feel free to use it however you want! And if you are kind you could have a link back to me" (http://dribbble.com/shots/819957-Imac-psd) Für mich heißt das - das Bild ist frei benutzbar, ..."

Simply look for "Feel free to use it however you want! And if you are kind you could have a link back to me" on http://dribbble.com/shots/819957-Imac-psd.

Thanks. --TheMostAmazingTechnik (talk) 16:18, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The file can only be restored after confirmation of the permission by an OTRS member. You could also ask about this at COM:OTRS/N. INeverCry 03:15, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 04:09, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:SQAY MARTIAL ART OF KASHMIR 02.jpg edit

Bot run amok, or Slovene graffiti copyright is relevant for the notability of the Indian national sqay team boarding a plane to compete in Bangladesh? -- Tuválkin ✉ 18:38, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delreq script error apart, this image showing a public scene concerning an international sports event is very much in scope. -- Tuválkin ✉ 02:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Restored and kept. INeverCry 03:24, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pallavi singh.JPG edit

Bot run amok, or Slovene graffiti copyright is relevant for the notability of women towing a jetsky ashore on a beach in Goa, tilted? -- Tuválkin ✉ 18:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delreq script error apart, this image is worth keeping as its contrast with File:Pallavi singh(4,6°).jpg (horizontalized) is illustrative of a photographic practice that would go unnoticed without the tilted horizon — that the depicted person is bent forwards towing, not posing. -- Tuválkin ✉ 03:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done per here -FASTILY 07:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mukhtar Isah Bala.jpg edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: the file fully belong to me. I uploded it to my google plus account on 27th of July 2012. That is why you found it there. And about the name golden frame, I gave the file that name for easy access because i have many files of that nature on my computer. The frame itself which you see on the file is not a trade mark at all. It is just an ordinary frame which is available on cyber link youcam 5 and that is what i used in snaping the picture. If you have the youcam 5 you can easily verify that. please sir i am the copyright owner and i would be so grateful if you kindly undelete the file. Mukhtar Isah Bala (talk) 21:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 04:09, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Natasha Falle.jpg edit

Natasha Falle has herself released this image under a Creative Commons licence. I forwarded the e-mail to OTRS quite some time ago. Was it not received? Ambassador Neelix (talk) 00:09, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close: probably wrong forum. I'd suggest re-sending the email, and posting this question to COM:OTRS/N -FASTILY 04:09, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Natasha Falle and Salvation Army officers.JPG edit

The Salvation Army has released this image under a Creative Commons licence. I forwarded the e-mail to OTRS quite some time ago. Was it not recieved? Ambassador Neelix (talk) 00:10, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close: probably wrong forum. I'd suggest re-sending the email, and posting this question to COM:OTRS/N -FASTILY 04:09, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:周辰達宣傳照.jpg edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: 因為我是周辰達的管理員,上傳這張照片是有經過他本人的,所以麻煩恢復頁面照片,謝謝~ 周辰達 (talk) 04:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 04:09, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Günter Wittlinger.jpg edit

Es ist das Bild meines Vaters, aufgenommen von mir bei der Hochzeit meiner Schwester - ich bin somit der Urheber und habe alle REchte.

Andreas Wittlinger (talk) 06:26, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may re-upload, but please include a copyright tag -FASTILY 07:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Banner jcjp.jpg edit

Restaurar archivo porque tengo autorización para subirla. Micnous (talk) 17:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)micnousMicnous (talk) 17:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC) Michael Espinoza Coila[reply]

 Not done OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 20:37, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Babak motavalli.jpg edit

Undelete this file so that we can properly close Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Babak motavalli. It was mentioned (not nominated) in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Babak motavalli44.jpg, and then was nominated for deletion in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Babak motavalli where a user argued for keeping it. The closing administrator of the first DR deleted it while the second one was open (and is still open) and while he was unaware of the discussion (see User talk:Jameslwoodward). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whym (talk • contribs) 2013-09-29T11:50:20‎ (UTC) --whym (talk) 12:18, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Restored and kept, and DR closed. INeverCry 20:23, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2013-09&oldid=303778016"