Open main menu

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Estamos bien los 33.svgEdit

File contains a re-drawing of the Chilean miners' famous phrase "Estamos bien en el refugio los 33". It is not eligible for copyright, as it is just a couple of letters. The phrase apparently was "copyrighted" but how can be that copyrighted if it's purely text, that can be re-drawn, and or rewritten by anyone at any time? Should I claim copyright for it? I don't think that's appropriate. Diego Grez return fire 00:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

 Not done This was discussed at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Estamos bien los 33.svg. As it was pointed here and here, yes, that simple and basic text has received copyright protection. We did not delete the file on a zealot suspicion that it may be copyrighted, but on clear evidence that it is copyrighted. Yes, this ruling makes little sense in respect to how copyriht usually works, but we can only discuss that on a citizen level; like or not (and no, I don't like it) the image is copyrighted and can't stay here Belgrano (talk) 12:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.


I uploaded the University of San Francisco's Admiralty and Maritime Law Society logo at the request of the president of the Society, the founder of the Society, and the University of San Francisco School of Law. It was uploaded to provide an image for the newly-created "USF Maritime Law Journal" page. Please advise me as to how I can get this image undeleted!--Alsobigdog (talk) 01:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC) March 7, 2011

Hi. We need to see that the copyright owner of the logo has given the permission. This can be either done by this person sending an email-permission to our COM:OTRS-people or if the USF Admiralty and Maritime Law Society has a website by visibly writing it on that website and linking to that (but then this permission cannot be removed anymore as it needs to be confirmable for people also in future years). If you pick the second choice come back here after the website was changed with the link. For the first choice the OTRS-people will do the rest. -- Cecil (talk) 09:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

 Not done. Requester did not follow up; will be handled by OTRS if permission is sent there. –Tryphon 00:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Asenov3.jpg, Asenov4.jpg, Arman asenov.jpg, Asenov1.jpg.Edit

Hello, please do not delete files: Asenov3.jpg, Asenov4.jpg, Arman asenov.jpg, Asenov1.jpg. Those photos was made by me, i work at a Bayterek Film Production Center (Продюсерский центр "Байтерек") and have their permission to use photos of actor and producer Arman Asenov as well as i can use shots from films, produced by Bayterek. Please, explain what information should be in official permission (text, company's stamp and etc.)? If you still need it i will ask to prepare it. Best regards, Aliya Sharipbaeva, PR-manager, Bayterek Film Production Company

Please send the permission to the COM:OTRS-team. On the linked page you will find what kind of information is needed (e.g. template-texts, ...). The OTRS-people then will handle the rest. -- Cecil (talk) 16:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

 Not done. Invalid request, the files are not even deleted yet. They're still missing permission though. –Tryphon 00:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Sell-stock-photos-online-49-tips.pdf Undeletion RequestEdit

This is an undeletion request for the file 'Sell-stock-photos-online-49-tips.pdf', the reason is copyright permission. Letter included below.


I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of

I agree to publish that work under the free license 'Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license'.

I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product, and to modify it according to their needs, as long as they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

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 attributed to me.

I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc.

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

28th March 2011 – Christopher Satchwell

--Webby1 (talk) 10:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)Christopher Satchwell 28th Marth 2011.

First, it has not been deleted, so this is not an appropriate place for this.
Second, the permission needs to follow the procedure at Commons:OTRS.
Third, this appears to be both out of scope and SPAM, so I have added a {{Delete}}, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sell-stock-photos-online-49-tips.pdf.
     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

 Not done. Invalid request, nothing to undelete. –Tryphon 00:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Crystal Clear app firefox.pngEdit

The icon was deleted on the assumption that it was a FireFox logo. However, it is not listed among Mozzilla's library of logos nor is it a derivative work of those logos. The icon was from a set of Crystal Clear released under the GNU Lesser General Public License. TheFarix (talk) 14:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

TheFarix is apparently correct. I have undeleted the image and revised the DR.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

BTW, even if it was a derivative of the Firefox logo (or the Firefox logo itself), I believe Mozilla is now releasing it under the same licenses as the Firefox software, which means it's covered by a free license. Trademark restrictions still apply, but those are not grounds for deletion. –Tryphon 00:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't think so. The base Mozilla legal page says:
"The trademarks and logos of the Mozilla Foundation and any third party and the look and feel of this web site (to the extent the look and feel elements are works of authorship, such as the graphic design, artwork, and artistic illustrations) are not included in the work that is licensed under the Creative Commons terms." [emphasis added]
Or do you think I'm missing something?     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support undeletion as well as other recently deleted Firefox logos.
File:Firefox 4.0 eo pri wasp.png
The Firefox logo is tri-licensed under MPL 1.1/GPL 2.0/LGPL 2.1 as was stated in discussions Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mozilla Firefox 3.5 logo 256.png and Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2011-01#Image:Mozilla Firefox 3.5 logo 256.png. Restrictions are related to trademark, not to copyright. Trycatch (talk) 21:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand your comment -- or am missing something. In my note above, I quote Mozilla as saying on its base legal page very explicitly that Firefox logos are not licensed under Creative Commons terms. CC is a copyright license and has nothing to do with trademark. I do not find any reference to the tri-license on the Mozilla web site's legal page cited above.
In addition, while it is true that MPL 1.1/GPL 2.0/LGPL 2.1 are not Creative Commons licenses, I find it hard to imagine that a Mozilla lawyer, writing the statement I quoted above, would not instead have said:
"The ... logos of the Mozilla Foundation ... are not included in the work that is licensed under the Creative Commons terms, but are licensed under MPL 1.1/GPL 2.0/LGPL 2.1"
if that had been their intention. I can only conclude that my original statement was correct.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
The only thing stated in your quote is that Mozilla logos are not distributed under a Creative Commons license. It's true, Firefox logo is distributed under MPL 1.1/GPL 2.0/LGPL 2.1, not under a CC license. It's explicitly stated in that Firefox branding is licensed under Mozilla tri-license, so honestly I don't understand what is the problem. This text is not just a personal initiative of some coder, as you can see here, it was reviewed and approved by Harvey Anderson, General Counsel of Mozilla Corporation. Trycatch (talk) 23:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
The Firefox logos are unambiguously licensed under the MPL (a free license), and have been so (though not quite as unambiguously) since 2007. While not Creative Commons, still perfectly free and they should still be kept. I'm sure the lawyers want to keep that distinction (MPL not CC), but we still should keep Firefox logos. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Trycatch, for the Anderson thread -- that explains why they have an ambiguity between the two cites above. Sometimes it takes words of one syllable, but eventually I usually understand. In effect, they are saying that they will rely on trademark law for their protection and forget about copyright.
All of this raises a question about our policy -- we have consistently ignored trademark except to call attention when it exists. Why should policy allow us to keep files that are, as a practical matter, NC and ND because of their trademark status? It seems to me that such files do not fit within "a database of 9,912,503 freely usable media files to which anyone can contribute" because they are by no means "freely usable".
For now, though, it is clear that this undeletion should be ✓ Done and, since it was my DR decision to delete I have undeleted all four.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done by Jameslwoodward. –Tryphon 00:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Novare image deletionEdit

The deleted image is in reference to and will be used for the explanation and creation of an entirely new dentistry niche; bridging the gap between "Cosmetic Dentistry" and a full-service "Dental Spa." Educating the world about the existence of a new, more efficient, more accessible dentistry niche is the cornerstone for cultivating the ideal.

Please re-instate image so I can continue my work. I am a small-business owner (and a new business both in age and niche) so getting everything done at one single time is impossible.


— Preceding unsigned comment added by Derek Renfroe, DMD (talk • contribs) 20:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
If you are referring to File:Novare square logo.jpg and File:Novare-Screen-Logo.png, they were deleted because they were copyright violations and/or promotional content. Commons is not a place to promote your business. Your userpage was deleted for that reason as well. --O (висчвын) 21:51, 02 February 2011 (GMT)
Promotional content cross wiki for what it's worth. --Herby talk thyme 09:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

 Not done, per O. –Tryphon 21:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.


Per this deletion discussion of a similar photo, I'd like to have this file (which I listed for deletion) undeleted. In the deletion debate for the other file, users were of the opinion that the image could be useful in other WMF projects. ZooFari (who closed this deletion debate and deleted the file) recommended I take the request here. -Gump Stump (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The one that was deleted obscured the subject with poorly drawn snow, a pasted-in Christmas tree, and the man in the moon. There is no conceivable educational use for that image, except maybe for a Photoshop instruction manual. The image that was not deleted is clearly a composite of similar origin but I think the "in-use" argument carries a lot of weight around here. I personally would have supported deletion of that image. Powers (talk) 13:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Frankly I find both of them useless, but others were of a different opinion--I thought I should bring it here to be sure it wasn't a mistake. Maybe you can answer this: why does "in-use" carry weight here, when (at least in this case) the only place the image was used was in an encyclopedia article where it shouldn't have been (as there were encyclopedic alternatives available)? -Gump Stump (talk) 19:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
In use = in scope. That is the rule. Hard to find exceptions. Someone deleted penis images that was used in Chinese Wikipedia with the argument that Chinese users did not know better! The reason for this rule is that the purpose of Commons is to host free images and not to decide which images Wikipedias or other sites chooses to use. That is decided locally by the users of that Wiki etc. --MGA73 (talk) 21:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Ah... Thanks for the explanation. -Gump Stump (talk) 21:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
What I don't like is considering the uploader's insertion of the image into an article to be evidence for being in scope. The reason for this should be obvious. Powers (talk) 02:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

 Not done. The consensus seems to be that this particular image was out of scope. –Tryphon 21:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Forest Day and the Center for International Forestry ResearchEdit


I was tasked with creating a wikipedia page for Forest Day and the Center for International Forestry Research to inform the international community about the important work being done in forestry management at the moment.

As part of this, I uploaded a number of photos for these pages that have subsequently been deleted. I realise that at the time I did not specify the correct licences however have been advised by the management at CIFOR that all of the photos which have been deleted should have been copyrighted as "Creative commons licence attribution 3.0" i.e. they may be reproduced but the source, CIFOR, must be acknowledged.

I am having trouble modifying each of these licences as the images have already been deleted so I would appreciate your assistance in this matter.

The images would have been as follows:


— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kovamic (talk • contribs) 04:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Please read the messages on your user talk page. You will need to complete a declaration of consent to publish the named files under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license and send it to OTRS from an official e-mail address. LX (talk, contribs) 16:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done for one file, which got a valid OTRS ticket;  Not done for the rest, which I assume was not covered by a valid permission. –Tryphon 21:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

This seems like a point of miscommunication that should be resolved by Commons editors who understand the process. The above comment from Kovamic makes it clear that permission is to be granted for all images; the receipt of OTRS approval for at least one image confirms that someone from is approving this. Interpreting that email narrowly to recognize only one image rather than closing the loop on all of them seems to be making it hard for people to release their images under a free license... one of the difficulties of a non-public OTRS confirmation process. --SJ+ 01:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Honda_GL1500SE_1999_Black.jpg was deleted, i took the picture, its my bikeEdit

SO how do i stop every tom, dick or harry deleting pictures i have taken?

Many Thanks

— Preceding unsigned comment added by SFX Group (talk • contribs) 04:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
There was no permission for this file and for us to host it the owners of the website you gave as the source would have to give their permission via OTRS. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 09:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

 Not done, permission has to be sent to OTRS. –Tryphon 21:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Richmond Teacher ResidencyEdit

I am unable to locate the rationale behind the deletion of this information. The info was updated and edited to state clearly the function of this grant. Can you describe what caused it to be deleted so the article can be improved?

Thank you.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Teach4change2 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
This was already described in a message on your user talk page. Wikimedia Commons is a repository for media files. It does not host articles. Please read Commons:Project scope. LX (talk, contribs) 15:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

 Not done, per LX. –Tryphon 21:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-Tung 1966 Ed.jpgEdit

When I uploaded this image, I put the wrong license on it, but I corrected it. It is a BOOK COVER and certainly meets all of Wikipedia's criteria under the license: Non-free book cover. I also add rationales. FYI: If you look at WikiCommon, Catergory:Quotations from Chairman Mao, you see see several other images of this same book. My book was purchased in 1966 in China, during the Cultural Revolution. (It is not an export edition, like most of the others.) There is a similar edition of the French version, but none of this edition in English with Mao on the cover. This book is OUT OF PRINT. I added the image to the English Wikipedia article that has the title of the book in the Article Namespace. -- Please remove your Speedy Delete Tag. Charvex (talk) 08:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Nothing to undelete, as the file has not been deleted. What do you mean by "your speedy delete tag?" You added the tag yourself by tagging the file with {{Non-free book cover}}. Wikimedia Commons does not accept non-free content. LX (talk, contribs) 10:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello Charvex. We're sorry but these files should be uploaded locally on Wikipedia, where non-free files with fair use rationales are accepted. Commons is different, and it's for free files only. So if you want to use them in English Wikipedia, choose "Upload file" from there (e.g. from the English article page) and avoid the Commons link. Keep in mind that if you want to use them in other Wikipedias you have to upload them there too. Regards, -- Orionisttalk 11:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

 Not done, per COM:FU. –Tryphon 21:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nyiostergotland 2010 ar.pdfEdit

I closed the subject DR as a delete, quoting COM:SCOPE:

"Excluded educational content includes:
...Files that contain nothing educational other than raw text. Purely textual material such as plain-text versions of recipes, lists of instructions, poetry, fiction, quotations, dictionary definitions, lesson plans or classroom material, and the like are better hosted elsewhere, for example at Wikibooks, Wikiquote, Wiktionary, Wikiversity or Wikisource" (emphasis added)

which says to me that this should be hosted elsewhere within WMF.

Two users have come back on my talk page, pointing out that the next paragraph at COM:SCOPE says:

"However, Commons can be used to host such material if included in a shareable media file that is of use to one of the other WMF projects

I do not have a solid understanding of the scope or content of Wikibooks, Wikiquote, Wiktionary, Wikiversity or Wikisource and therefore don't understand the interaction of the two quoted policies, so I decided put it here for discussion.

Note that translations of the subject document have DRs which were opened yesterday:

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

These files are usable on Wikisource together with the Proofread Page-extension. This extension is enabled on every WS-project. (Look at s:sv:Index:Nyiostergotland 2010 sv.pdf for how it looks for the swedish version of this file.)
As I said on "User talk:Jameslwoodward", on Swedish Wikisource, it's still possible to upload files. (On many other projects that possibility has been closed.) But we have not the ability to administrate file-uploads. We are normally ~10 active users every month, and nobody is interested in file-administration. That's the main reason we use Commons who has all tools, that we are missing. -- Lavallen (talk) 12:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support I'm pretty sure the "purely textual material" scope thing is for volunteer-authored or edited text. Scans of original documents, or even original PDFs published elsewhere which are of educational material, can be uploaded here, as it does provide additional information to see the actual form of the original publication. The extract of any text in them should go into wikisource, but the actual PDF or DJVU media should be on Commons. Any individual page of a PDF or DJVU file can be used as an illustration image in a Wikipedia article, as well (just use page=xxx in the File: link). The PDF content itself must be in scope of course, but if any of these PDFs are the source documents for Wikisource texts, they are automatically in scope and should be kept. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support I uploaded the file, and I support its undeletion. --LA2 (talk) 14:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done --Trycatch (talk) 06:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Open de Rouen FilesEdit

Hi, I would like to restore those three files: File:Eddie Aucoin Open de Rouen 2009.jpg, File:Colby Anderson Open de Rouen 2009.jpg and File:Calendrier Open de baseball de Rouen 2009.jpg. I'm not familiar with commons and forgot to put the correct licensing on time. I just had time for those two (File:Matt Vance - Open de Rouen 2009.jpg, File:Martin Johnson Open de Rouen 2009.jpg), not yet deleted, and put the cc-by licence. The same is available to the three deleted files.

Thanks --Maximinus18 (talk) 18:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment also for the two files Im not sure: Where does the licensing information come from? Can you provide an weblink with the license information or can you sent written permission? --Martin H. (talk) 02:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

 Not done and tagged the other two files with {{No permission}}. –Tryphon 09:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Masjid Al Haram. Mecca, Saudi Arabia.jpgEdit

The file was deleted after this request. I don't see the difference to many other images in Category:Masjid al-Haram, e.g. to File:Supplicating Pilgrim at Masjid Al Haram. Mecca, Saudi Arabia.jpg or File:Masjid al-Haram.JPG. Why should Commons:Freedom of panorama#Saudi Arabia be relevant in this case? --:bdk: 00:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC) – Note: former usage of the photo. --:bdk: 01:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The argument that such and such a similar image hasn't been deleted is not valid. Remember that Admins, including you, make 30,000 administrative actions a month. Only a few of us regularly close DRs. Therefore, when we close a DR, we do not generally look at the whole category, but just at the image or images named in the DR. There are often other, similar, images that should also be deleted.
Second, FOP is very specific and not very exact.
  • The subject image is rather awkwardly framed by a cutout in a balcony. It shows the crowd, the Kaaba, and the mosque. While the mosque is clearly a principal subject of the image, I also considered the awkward framing when I chose to delete it.
  • File:Supplicating Pilgrim at Masjid Al Haram. Mecca, Saudi Arabia.jpg shows both a single pilgrim and the Kaaba as its principal subjects and the new mosque is only background. I don't think there would be much discussion about this being OK.
  • File:Masjid al-Haram.JPG This one is harder, but I would probably vote to keep it. It is similar to the subject image, but does not have awkward framing. The mosque is background.
     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. Well, I did not argue that the other two images should also be deleted, or that the deleted one should be undeleted because of the others. I just mentioned them as comparable motifs (for non-admins and as an explanation) because I really don't see which parts of the deleted image could be regarded as "copyrighted architecture" (the unspecific deletion request didn't help). I'm not a Mecca expert, but aren't all these mosque buildings (including the Kaaba) pretty old? So which Masjid al-Haram parts (if not of "background" character only) should not be published under a free license on Commons, and why?
To understand correctly: Are you saying that the blurry balcony "frame" in the foreground is the part of the image that is mainly relevant for the "no FOP in Saudi Arabia" reasoning?
Hmm, if there actually is a general FOP problem with some Masjid al-Haram photos, then I guess it's reasonable to add a copyright warning to the category/gallery similar to the one at Category:Eiffel Tower at night. This would inform users about problematic parts. --:bdk: 00:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Undeleted This file was deleted in error. The mosque is very old, and there is nothing else to copyright here. Yann (talk) 09:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Reopened discussion. I think we all need to read Masjid al-Haram and discuss it further. Although I, too, am not an expert on Mecca, my reading is that while the mosque is ancient, it has had many recent additions, including everything visible in these images. Certainly this

shows a very different facade facing the Kaaba from this

The basis of my deletion is that the new facade is recent and there is no FOP in Saudi Arabia. I think that is correct, but obviously it needs further discussion. I should add that my understanding is that the exterior of the Kaaba is ancient and any recent improvements are de minimis in all of our images.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

If you think that the building is still copyrighted, open a DR for all images, but do not delete one of them with a very disputable argument. Yann (talk) 16:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
If you think it is disputable, please give us a reason. Both the WP:EN article and the two images above show that the present facade is not old. Our own information says there is no FOP in Saudi Arabia. So on what do you base your dispute?
There is no point in opening a DR on a lot of images -- some of which will be keep for several reasons -- unless we can agree on this one, which is one of the more obvious of them.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
The mosque has apparently been extended starting in 1985 or so with a series of enlargements (I think I saw a reference to those three domes being newer). I would guess the first story of the facade is the old one, so we are only talking about the second story. I would say this photo is fine though, and that is de minimis use -- the photo is focusing on the event itself, and there is no way to avoid the architecture. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
A detail of the new architecture might get a copyright. Here the new elements are only a small part of the building, and even a smaller part of the picture. Therefore it cannot create a copyright for the whole picture. Yann (talk) 16:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done for a while already. As Carl Lindberg says, it does seem to be de minimis, as it focuses on the event and there's no way to avoid including the architecture. Feel free to re-open a DR if anyone disagrees. –Tryphon 09:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Un-deletion for File:Filipnikolic.jpgEdit

Request of un-deletion as a result of sending proof of ownership and license grant to wikipedia sent for this image.

To I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of WORK [Filipnikolic.jpg ]. I agree to publish that work under the free license [ GNU Free Documentation License ]. I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product, and to modify it according to their needs, as long as they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. 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 attributed to me. I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the work may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

January 13th 2010 Ron P.   

Echo Park Records

Thank you


If the volunteers of the mail system confirm the permission, they will undelete the file. Jcb (talk) 21:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done by ZooFari. –Tryphon 09:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.


To, I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of WORK [1] I agree to publish that work under the free license {{GFDL}}: "Copyleft (Multi-license GFDL, all CC-BY-SA)" I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product, and to modify it according to their needs, as long as they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. 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 attributed to me. I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the work may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

January 14th, 2010 Boris Zuccon E-mail

You will have to send this to the email address. The volunteers who process those incoming mail messages will be able to restore the file after verification of the permission. Jcb (talk) 18:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

 Not done. It seems permission was never sent to OTRS or it was invalid. –Tryphon 09:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.


No, the Logo is not only simple design. And that page is an article on that site that refers to a specific album on their website, the article was posted there on December 17, the day Fanofbollywood (talk · contribs) - who seems to be connected to that site from that evidence - started uploading. The cc-by-sa not refers to the logo or any other content. --Martin H. (talk) 12:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Still i am not sure, how the simple design concept works, 80% of this image is covered by fonts and 20% covered by a film reel...I think film reel is a problem for the copyright...I measured it simple against this file File:ANWLOGO.jpg..--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 17:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
If it is the logo at the page you linked, yes, it is the film reel that is copyrightable. That other one you link.... ooh. That is closer, as the Copyright Office has denied copyright on some simple variations of human stick figures, but that may cross the line. Worthy of a DR, probably. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

 Not done, per Martin H. and Carl Lindberg. –Tryphon 09:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Files by Orange.manEdit

I noticed two files (made by still inactive user which were taged as "no source" (File:Elektrarna_Tisová.jpg, File:Elektrarna_Tisova3.jpg). It's true that some fields in the {{Information}} template were empty. However, both these files were tagged with {{PD-self|author=I, [[|]]}} when uploaded, and both have full metadata etc. There is no reason to suspect them as "no source". I removed {{No source since}}.

Apparently, some colleagues should be more judicious. However, User contains also files which are removed still. Please check whether they aren't some similar cases and restore them if they are.

--ŠJů (talk) 00:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

He never added a license to the listed files. The files were not tagged with 'no source' and not deleted for that reason. --Martin H. (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
As I can see, File:Elektrarna Tisova3.jpg had a valid license since uploading and the author was clearly claimed with the "self" attribute. I can hardly believe that File:Elektrárna Tisova2.jpg didn't contain these information. An empty field in the template doesn't mean that the information is missing. Also a discernment has to be used. --ŠJů (talk) 21:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
It has not license template nor any other copyright related information, the description copy&pasted completely is {{Information |Description= Elektrarna Tisova z pohledu ze silnice do Citic |Source= |Date=21.7.2007 |Author= |Permission= |other_versions= }} [[Category:Power plants in Czech Republic]], the edit history is
  • (show/hide) (diff) 19:31, 21 July 2007 . . CommonsDelinker (talk | contribs | block) (230 bytes) (Bot: Marking newly uploaded untagged file)
  • (show/hide) (diff) 19:10, 21 July 2007 . . (talk | contribs | block) (186 bytes) ({{Information |Description= Elektrarna Tisova z pohledu ze silnice do Citic |Source= |Date=21.7.2007 |Author= |Permission= |other_versions= }} Category:Power plants in Czech Republic)
This can be closed, regretably there is nothing to undelete without license. Maybe you can contact the original uploader and ask him to provide a license on his talkpage. --Martin H. (talk) 23:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
As we can see in the real page history, the files File:Elektrarna_Tisová.jpg and File:Elektrarna_Tisova3.jpg have also no visible license in the summary but the license template with an authorship claim was uploaded at once with the image. Do you have really checked the original first version of file pages? --ŠJů (talk) 00:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello?? I just copy&pasted it to you, if I say there is not license than I dont guess this or invent this. I visited the page and wrote it down here for you. The other files HAVE a license tag, == Licensing == {{PD-self|author=I, [[|]]}} this was not added to the three deleted uploads, the uplaoder forgot to add a license apparently. --Martin H. (talk) 00:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

 Not done, the three deleted files do not have a license. –Tryphon 09:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Luko Adjaffi, Haitian MusicanEdit

To whom it may concern: After hours of editing and nagivating through your system, the file "Luko Adjaffi" was deleted before I could enhance it with video and music files and photos. The current articles in wikipedia on Haitian Musicans could be enhanced by making note of those influenced by Bob Marley and other Reggae fusionists.

My intent is to also add to Wikipedia's music and video files in addition to the article. If there are any specific edits that can be made to present a more suitable format to wikipedia, please let me know. That would be preferable than delting the whole article.

I would greatly appreciate more feedback and instruction.

Thanks for your consideration

Orisanmi Odesanya
— Preceding unsigned comment added by OrisanmiOdesanya (talk • contribs) 08:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Please read the instructions. You failed to identify the files you are requesting for undeletion and sign your request.
You have no media file uploads on Commons. Trawling through the deletion logs, I can only guess that you refer to the out-of-scope (and incorrectly capitalised) Luko adjaffi. Wikimedia Commons is a media repository. Wikimedia Commons is not Wikipedia. Wikimedia commons does not host encyclopædia articles. LX (talk, contribs) 09:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Luko adjaffi was created by (talk · contribs), OrisanmiOdesanya (talk · contribs) does not have any deleted contributions. Nothing to undelete here. In any case the article (a mere collection of youtube links and other spam) was created in en:User:LUKO ADJAFFI. --Martin H. (talk) 16:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
...which was edited by both en:User:LUKO ADJAFFI themselves and en:User:OrisanmiOdesanya. Both accounts also exist here, and User:LUKO ADJAFFI does have a deleted contribution (a copyright violation) here.
OrisanmiOdesanya, is there a legitimate reason why you need to use multiple accounts? LX (talk, contribs) 18:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

 Not done. –Tryphon 09:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Farc picturesEdit

A user requested pictures deletion in Commons bistro. I then deleted them as they were without EXIF tags and without correct source indication. Uploader have requested undeletion on my talk pages. I'm recopying here the messages, so a admin with a better spanish comprehension than mine could handle the request. --Dereckson (talk) 04:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


I don't speak english I speak spanish.

Veo que has borrado una foto en este arítculo de aquí y no entiendo realmente el motivo. Aca te dejo el link de la página donde se tomó la imagen ya que es del Gobierno Federal de los Estados Unidos.


Narcotics Rewards Programs: Victor Julio Suarez Roja

Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs

Victor Julio Suarez Rojas

Nanovapor9 (talk) 23:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


Veo que igualmente has borrado fotos de los siguientes artículos:

1. Alfonso Cano: Historial de «Alfonso Cano»

Y aquí está el link de donde proviene la imagen: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

2. Iván Márquez: Historial de «Iván Márquez»

Y aquí está el link de donde proviene la imagen: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

3. Raúl Reyes: Historial de «Raúl Reyes»

Y aquí está el link de donde proviene la imagen: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Nanovapor9 (talk) 00:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Las imágenes que han sido borradas no eran proveniente de este sitio del Gobierno de los Estados Unidos, sino imágenes con calidad más alta y mejores calidades técnicas y artísticas, qui obviamente provenian de otra fuente. las imágenes provenientes de la fuente que Vd indica todavía están aquí, no han sido borradas : File:Cano farc.jpg for example.

If the deleted images were the same as the ones in the links... then I don't think they should be undeleted. Even though they appear on a US Government web page, to use the PD-USGov tag, the works have to be *authored* by a US Government employee, and there is no indication of that -- the government would appear to just be using photos authored by others (fair use for sure, but not "free"). So no, that license should not apply. File:Cano farc.jpg should also be deleted. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Per Carl Lindberg. The same applies to almost all Category:Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia portraits. An U.S. government employee is not the creator, the files not fulfill {{PD-USGov}} (or more specific subtemplates of us gov agencies), the author information author=Gobierno Federal de los Estados Unidos is wrong in most cases. --Martin H. (talk) 14:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I was the user requesting deletion of these images, I definitely remember that these images are not the ones from the US gvt, they were definitely higher quality and better composition. It was pictures that were available on various websites (colombian radio stations etc.). I don't think they should be restored. By the way, I don't know how we can exclude that the photos of FARC leaders made public by the US government were actually taken by personal of a US administration. It was easy to come and make a photograph of FARC leaders during the peace talks of 1999-2002 (they were making public appearances). --Sylvain2803 (talk) 06:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I propose that we close this noting no further action at this time.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

 Not done. Being published on a U.S. government website doesn't mean they were created by a U.S. government employee in the course of their duty. –Tryphon 15:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Conflicting deletion requests resultsEdit

A while ago I uploaded File:Burj Al Arab from Le Royal Méridien Beach Resort and Spa in Dubai.jpg and File:Burj Al Arab from Le Royal Méridien Beach Resort and Spa in Dubai 3.jpg as part of a collection of photographs on Dubai. There is no freedom of panormama in the UAE (and certainly not one for photos from private places, as these were) but at the time I thought they would be okay under de minimis, since the images were primarily of the marina, coast, and landscape. Despite this, they were soon nominated for deletion. Both images were very similar, and although they were (if my memory is correct) taken on different days, this should not have been significant in determining if the claim for de minimis was correct or not. I argued to keep both in their deletion requests consistently. However, both deletion requests were closed by different admins and had different results:

Clearly, given the images similarity keeping one and deleting the other makes little sense - the result has really got to be either delete both or keep both. I have contacted both admins to try reach a resolution but unfortunately this could not be achieved [2], [3]. So I'm taking it here for third opinions. While they were originally my uploads I don't have a strong opinion either way. CT Cooper · talk 21:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

If we look at the examples of de minimis such as File:Louvre at night centered censored.jpg & File:Virgin America airplane interior.jpg, all the de minimis claims will not stay and all the nominated files need to delete, Its how we measure the quantity of copyrighted structures came into the picture, and since there is no benchmarking for the de minimis its all depend upon a consensus, or the de minimis should be clear enough to say that 10% of copyrighted structures with partial visibility is ok......Captain......Tälk tö me.. 05:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Per the French court, that photo of the pyramid in the Louvre did not need to be censored (and indeed, we have the uncensored version around as well). To me... if the building is not the primary subject of the photo, it should be fine. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it was the example of File:Louvre at night centered.jpg which gave me the impression that de minimis could be applied to these photos. CT Cooper · talk 09:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
You know, I can almost see why one was kept and the other wasn't. The one that was kept has the buildings in shadow, which serves to de-emphasize them and direct the picture's focus to the marina; the one that was deleted looks more like the focus of the image is on the buildings. It's a tricky case, to be sure, but I would be inclined to keep both as de minimis. Powers (talk) 14:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Keep for both. --SJ+ 01:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Restored. Yann (talk) 05:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.


Please undelete this file. The file was speedy deleted and oversighted.

  • According to the oversighter there was no request from the WMF. According to the oversight rules at Commons:Oversighters something can only be suppressed on the advice of Wikimedia Foundation counsel.
  • The file was in use at an English Wikipedia article making it in scope.
  • There was no support at all for a similar deletion

Thank you, Multichill (talk) 22:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

After a note from Phillipe that the deletion is currently solely within the purview of the community, the suppression has been reversed. The file is now solely regularly deleted and the UDR should proceed as normal. -- Avi (talk) 22:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
(Potential copyright/out of scope)

Above deletion reason; below the page detail  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Also I think it is very bad practice to delete without leaving a note. File:NewFreeSpeechFlag.svg should also be undeleted. That there "might be" a Office action is not a good reason. If we do not know if there is one we should not delete. I bet the office knows how to contact Commons if they think there is a problem so it is not impossible or hard for them to leave us a notice! --MGA73 (talk) 19:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm dubious of a copyrightability argument. From reading the comments on the source article though, it sounds like this is a near-useless key used in connection with a servicing dongle, and can actually harm the hardware. The real supposed key from the court case is apparently completely different. Not sure there is much worth to restoring it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Facing no actual explanation for it's deletion, undeletion is the next logical step forward. -- Ned Scott (talk) 12:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support undeletion. I see no copyright problem, and it certainly was in scope. And if there is doubt about either of these, it should go through a DR, not be speedy deleted like this. –Tryphon 12:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Restored. as above. Yann (talk) 05:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.


etal, specifically the Kentucky related files on Commons:Deletion requests/File:George madison plaque.png On 10 March, I informed the interested parties, I had posed the question to an authoritative source regarding my original work, the photograph which included a Kentucky Historical marker. I posed this question to the Kentucky Historical society, based on this webpage within the official Kentucky Government at the bottom of said page it stated

For more information, please contact
Becky Riddle
Kentucky Historical Highway Marker Program Coordinator
(502) 564-1792 ext. 4474

which I did, she responded that she would get in touch with the legal department. Today I received this response

Hi Kevin,
I just spoke with our attorney about this issue. It is his opinion that the text of the markers is not copyrighted. In other words, anyone can take a photo of a marker and post it on a website without having to get permission from the Kentucky Historical Society. I hope that answers your question. Please let me know if you need any more information about this.

and went back to inform the interested parties, and found the files had been deleted just one day after I informed the page of my query.

At best, I assume in good faith, that user:jameslwoodward was doing deletions at godspeed, and did not read, the last comment on the page, mine. Perhaps, there is a proceedure to halt a deletion request I could have taken to prevent it from occuring until my authoritative answer was received.

At worse, perhaps he disregarded my plea.

In any case, it seems the files, in the case of Kentucky are arguably clear of copyright violations, which is the chief concern, if I am correct. Proceedural issues asside.

K3vin (talk) 19:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support I think. The design of the markers is hardly ever a copyright issue. They have at times been trademarked, but I'm not sure most would be eligible for copyright in the first place. The text is another matter. Markers put up before March 1, 1989 without an explicit copyright notice are PD-US-no_notice, and are not an issue. After that, it gets a little weirder. It is possible that certain photographs of the markers, particularly ones which are more from a distance, are inherently fair use (i.e. fair use no matter what use the photo itself is put to); in those situations it is my opinion we should keep those (as they are effectively "free"). But, that is sometimes hard to define, and some photos which are really focusing on just the text may not be defendable that way. But, given the Kentucky response, I think that should be enough. Thanks for doing some legwork on that; it is always helpful. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose If you look closely the date "1992" is printed on the plaque. Assuming this is when the text was first published, the text is still in copyright, and extensive enough for copyright protection. See my essay Commons:Images containing text. The Society's attorney is incorrect. Dcoetzee (talk) 02:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
But if it is the copyright owner of said text making that statement, it changes things I think. For these at least. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I would not equate a claim that a work is ineligible for copyright with a waiver of rights. Dcoetzee (talk) 03:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
So you would require a license for rights the only potential owner of which believes do not exist? That seems a bit much for a normal work, let alone a photograph of something of the nature of an historical marker, which meant to inform the public in the first place. I think this goes well beyond common sense (though, I can't see the photo in question, to be honest). Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Of course I would. You think if you forwarded that e-mail to OTRS they would accept it as a release under a free license? What we need to do is contact them again and get a release from them, regardless of their beliefs. We can tell them we're just being careful. Dcoetzee (talk) 11:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support The words are bare facts and void of artistic merit. I am not sure how else that information could be imparted Special person house live born had kids Facts are not copyright.  — billinghurst sDrewth 16:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
To emphasise my point on this matter, it is not unrealistic for anybody to write that sentence as a means to describe the residence as they are facts. That someone has recorded facts onto a plaque does neither indicate nor confer artistic merit. It is not a poem, nor anything of artistic merit, just facts. Your essay clearly misses the requirement for artistic merit for the text to be copyrightable.  — billinghurst sDrewth 16:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose My delete was based on two things:
First, the text, which has a copyright. The comment above that bare facts are not copyrightable is, of course, true, but any particular expression of those facts always has a copyright. If any of the texts of these plaques had been put in an article on WP:EN with a photo of the plaque, the text would have been removed immediately as copyvio.
The comment that text must have artistic merit to have a copyright is not correct. There is nothing in US law that requires any artistic merit for text or works of art. If a first or second grade student writes an essay on George Washington, once it gets beyond a few words, it has a copyright.
Maybe I should have said creative to use the more modern reflection on the language, but the copyright law is clearly about intellectual property. This line of text is purely information, and descriptive and consisting entirely of information that is common property. Remembering that copyright is about the "right to make a copy" … so on your interpretation of the law, you are saying that no other person has the right to reproduce that line of text. I challenge that interpretation. So if we have a plaque that says "Joe Bloggs, b. 1742, d. 14 April 1799. A revolutionary soldier. Slept here 25 December 1791; drunk." Now presuming that the text is factual that you will allow me copyright on the words? Or how about "Joe Bloggs who was born in 1742 and died on 14th April 1799, was a revolutionary soldier slept here drunk on 25th December 1791" are you now giving me copyright? I put it to you that for there to be copyright to a work that it needs to be more than a sentence that is purely information and factual. I will agree that there is no black line to where copyright starts, however, in my opinion it is not here, and I doubt that any court would find so on this text.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Second, the shape and design of the signs. I would not claim that a simple square sign has any copyright, but several of these have distinctive shapes and bas relief decoration around the text. My opinion is that the sculptor/engraver has a copyright in these, but I don't feel as strongly about that as I do about the text.
I also note that all we have so far is a report of a conversation with counsel who is almost certainly not a copyright expert. I would be very surprised if the unnamed lawyer will be willing to give us a written opinion that these signs do not have a copyright and that is, of course, what we would need if we are to keep them.
Finally, I note that the unnamed lawyer's opinion that
"anyone can take a photo of a marker and post it on a website without having to get permission from the Kentucky Historical Society"
is a far cry from an opinion that such photographs could be used commercially or in derivative works, which, of course, we require.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I tend to agree on the text itself -- it could probably carry a copyright. I thoroughly disagree with the shape and design of the signs, from looking at photos elsewhere. At most they could be trademarked. As for the license though, this is the hard part. I do not think we need a license for the text itself; we only need to decide if its use in that particular photo would always be fair use of the text no matter how the photo itself is used. Could you put it on a postcard? For very particular situations like this, I think you could. We need permission to make derivative use of the photo itself, which we have. Separate uses made of items depicted in the photo are a completely different matter. We accept parody works, which are also a fair use defense, because they are still usable in a commercial context (even though a separate work which removes the parody, the licensed portion, would not be OK). It is always interesting to see what aspects of a historical site are mentioned and featured, and which are omitted, and the photo is showing the text in its public context -- which given the nature of that sort of thing in particular, would I think lend itself to an argument that the use of the text in the photo is inherently fair use regardless of how you use the photo (which is the only thing we are trying to determine the license of). Once things get to that point, I think they should be considered "free". Parody is one example, and there are probably a few (limited) others. This type of thing may not extend to items not similar to historical markers for example -- each case is different. I can see some of the other side, but I think in these cases we are taking the letter of copyright law beyond common sense and what the courts would protect. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

My original question remains. What is the cause for such urgency? The email, while hardly a contract, and of course not sourced, can well be verified and sourced. Lawsuits have used flimsier evidence in some cases. Should wikimedia require the Commonwealth of Kentucky to send an email to the commons address regarding releases, duly signed by an attorney, and will then, zealous editors, acting in good faith still claim that a photograph of public property, in a public place in a non commercial setting, is anything but free to use? If that requirement is made, however, it can be provided. Should I forward the email exchanges to the wikimedia archives, should we file a writ with the Commonwealth attorney's office? I understand to err on the side of caution. But in the case of Kentucky Historical Markers, I think the state's opinion is clear. Who is at risk? What is the risk. Is the risk, overruling someone doing what they think is the right thing to do? Hon. Kevin Fillips, Colonel (KY), K3vin (talk) 19:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I am still ruminating over this. Jim, states, correctly, the text has a copyright, but so does this discussion, and my blog and just about everything. Isn't the question about fair use? Not whether or not something HAS a copyright? Expired copyrights are still copyrights that have expired. Is it safe to assume the statement intended by the Kentucky attorney to be go ahead, and do what you will, we don't care. While we cannot assume intent, I am pretty certain, if this issue has to escalate to an authoritative level in Kentucky. Common sense will prevail. In that, it is in the interest of Kentucky and its citizens for its historical markers to be seen by the wider public, and not just by pedestrians and drivers on the public roadways of Kentucky. I wonder if I could suggest a bill to some legislative friends?
still, Kevin K3vin (talk) 18:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
If you want to claim fair use, then you will need to do that at enWP as a specific case within their guidelines, rather than at Commons. As Commons is shared through all the WMF family, it could be used on many articles and that is beyond fair use.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I am getting caught up in jargon. I am trying to convey, even though it is under copyright, can't it be still free to use, if the copyright owner, does not enforce its copyright, in this case Commonwealth of Kentucky. K3vin (talk) 03:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
The only OUT for copyright is to release it to the public domain in some format. To that there are a number of solutions. Like the US Federal Government they say by legislation that copyright doesn't apply on X Y Z. Whereas some governments look to release their contributions by specific application of Creative Commons licences. Look at various Open Government initiatives, examples are
* {{OGL}}
* (and my favourite dataset)
So, to me, the easier solution is a release of information under a Creative Commons licence, and declarations that material sets AAA AAB ... ACD are available under PICK YOUR LICENCE. If this is on an official website of the government (federal / state / ...) and has clarity, then we can link to it, and align images with it. BINGO!  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Addendum, I been shown that the Whitehouse has a scheme in place and this allows the speeches of Michelle Obama to be released under Creative Commons. See  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

What now? so should I contact my contacts within the historical society to see about issuing a blanket license on the plaques? K3vin (talk) 17:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Restored. as per K3vin. We have a lawyer's opinion that it is OK. Yann (talk) 05:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.


Deleted because it had No license since 22 March 2011, but it's simply {{PD-textlogo}}. See File:LATICRETElogo.jpg. –Tryphon 07:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, it has elements of design. If someone can copyright 15 words of text as I see above, then this has design elements. Keep it deleted.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by "elements of design". Anyway, have a look at Threshold of originality#United States; it seems to me that one word and a few aligned rectangles is way below the threshold of originality compared to some of these images. –Tryphon 15:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
"Elements of design" is not a copyrightable criteria, in the U.S. anyways. There is a "selection and arrangement" copyright... but the arrangement there is too simple, and I'm not sure there are enough distinct elements to select. There was a copyright case where the basic cover design of Reader's Digest (including font selection, and placement of the various headlines, all in combination) was deemed copyrightable, but that goes well beyond this. But, is this a U.S. company? Other countries do protect industrial design via copyright (the U.S. does so via design patents, and not copyright). Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Well it's an international company, called Laticrete International, Inc., but it was founded in the U.S. and they still have their headquarters in the U.S. –Tryphon 08:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Restored. PD-ineligible. 05:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.


This is an image of an illustrated tea towel. The tea towel was "published" by Statens Husholdningsråd, a government agency, in 1967. I uploaded this image some five or so years ago, having an oral permission from Forbrugerstyrelsen, an agency created by merging Statens Husholdningsråd and a couple of other agencies, and therefore the succeessor to Statens Husholdningsråd.

Last month, I realised that a written permission would be necessary, so I tagged the image as {{Copyvio}}. It was later deleted.

Next, I contacted Konkurrence- og Forbrugerstyrelsen, a merger of Forbrugerstyrelsen and Konkurrencestyrelsen, and therefore the current successor agency. They replied that they had no objection to reuse of the image of the towel, but that the illustration on the towel was created by Danish artist Jørgen Clevin. I contacted his heirs who accepted release under CC-BY-SA. The relevant correspondance is in In short:

  • The towel as a towel is not protected, but even if it were, the "publisher" has no objections to reuse.
  • The artwork on the towel may or not be sophisticated enough to be protected, but the heirs agree to release under CC-BY-SA.
  • The photo is by me, and may or not be sophisticated enough to be protected, but I have released it under CC-BY-SA.

--Palnatoke (talk) 13:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done by EPO --Ezarateesteban 14:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

on the bottom of site of SUR is written: "Tutti i diritti riservati. La riproduzione dei documenti di questo sito o parte di essi è autorizzata a condizione di citare esplicitamente la fonte." "All rights reserved. The reproduction of this website or any part of there shall be permitted explicitly mentioning the source" (excuse for my english). on my Flickr account "domenico d'erchia" there is the file with PD.

--Domenicoderchia (talk) 21:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

File:File:Dallas Morning News 5.jpgEdit

This article was obtained through a subscription to the website According to the website, articles are available for Fair Use with attribution. Sam Degelia (talk) 04:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Commons cannot accept media which relies on fair use exceptions to copyright law; see Commons:Fair use. The copyright must be licensed under a "free" license (which fair use does not come anywhere near), or be public domain (i.e. copyright has expired). What year was the article from? Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

 Not done incompatible licenses --Ezarateesteban 14:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

User page User:HundovirEdit

Don't know if this is the correct place to raise this, but my user page has disappeared! And I'd quite like it back. A search of the deletion log brought up nothing. My user contributions page is also gone - ok, I hadn't done much, but it was my own! Hundovir (talk) 20:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC) Scratch that - I'm not sure how I ended up in commons -everything seems fine in the main Wikipedia. Apologies.Hundovir (talk) 20:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.


I published this picture to the article Jose Sainz Nothnagel which I drastically edited in Jan 2010.

First, this picture was a publically released headshot while my father was in public service in Spain.

Secondly, my father died in 1982, and this original picture was inherited by me as part of his estate, so it is now my property.

The article it is published with pertains to his public service before, during, and after the Spanish Civil War. The 2 other pictures that remain in the article are employee ID or membership cards from the 1950s and have little bearing on the article itself other than to prove that he did not die in 1938 as was originally stated in the article when I found it (referenced erroneously in the book by Reese, Edwin K. 'Right Wing Extremists; 1890-1990'

Ever since I first encountered this article, everything I have posted has been challenged and other pictures have been removed, even that of an unknown newspaper clipping, which has a direct bearing on the article (Sainz_Hedilla_Salazar.jpg).

I have a box full of his photographs that I could insert into the article and we could play back and forth with those for years. A standard public domain period era headshot should be allowed because it is directly pertinent, vs me posting a picture of my own making takn 50 years after the fact which has no bearing on the article.

Therefore, I ask that this picture be un-deleted.


Rick Sainz Tuned2 (talk) 15:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose First, it is helpful if, when you make a request here, if you give us the correct file name, which is File:Jose Sainz Nothnagel.jpg -- spaces are significant in Commons file names, as is capitalization.
This file has been deleted because we have no permission from the copyright holder. You have apparently made a common mistake -- owning a physical copy of a photograph does not mean you own the copyright. You also apparently think that, somehow, newspaper clippings are automatically in the public domain. Any newspaper publisher will assure you that they are not.
You say,
"this picture was a publicly released headshot while my father was in public service in Spain."
With that taken as a given, the copyright almost certainly belongs to the photographer or his heirs. Photographers very rarely give away or sell copyrights with their photographs and in most countries it requires a special writing in order to accomplish it.
We cannot keep it on Commons unless we know that it is either in the public domain or has an appropriate license. I suggest that both
File:Sainz_Hedilla_Salazar.jpg and
File:Jose Sainz Nothnagel.jpg
could be kept on WP:EN with a fair use tag. I don't know the rules as WP:ES, so I can't comment about that.
     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

 Not done, per Jim. –Tryphon 15:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:The Songs Of Bruce Springsteen 1965 - 2010.jpgEdit

This was deleted as copyright violation of the cover picture.

This picture was taken by myself and the book is by myself, so there is no copyright violation

I hope you can undelete my page


— Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevie rowland (talk • contribs) 21:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
No, we can not. Your photograph is a derivative work of the book cover and the cover is not free. See also COM:CB#Book_covers: The fact that you are the physical owner of a book does not mean that you are authorised to replicate the cover design. --Martin H. (talk) 21:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Martin, with all due respect I think you are confused. If he is indeed Steve Rowland, then he wrote the book in question, and I see no reason to doubt his statement that he took the photo.
Steve: since we have to make sure this is you, and not someone else impersonating you, could you please see COM:OTRS and send an email as requested there, ideally from an email address clearly identified with you as the author of the book? - Jmabel ! talk 00:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Does the owner have a high quality image for the said work...supported by an OTRS..?? ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 10:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I striked my comment above, I misunderstood the request. In my opinion the best will be if Stevie uploads the original photo, unmodified, instead of the "book" cover. --Martin H. (talk) 10:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Sure, but it's the author's choice as to what exactly they upload and what they do not (high vs low resolution, cover vs original). I think we do need an OTRS notification (people have in the past registered with fake accounts to make it appear they were the author), but otherwise everything is fine. But, it will get undeleted once the OTRS message is processed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

 Not done. Will be handled by OTRS. –Tryphon 15:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Peter Pronovost.jpgEdit

I sent my source permission email to the email address. Stagophile (talk) 00:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Then it will probably be restored when that permission is received. - Jmabel ! talk 06:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

 Not done. Will be handled by OTRS. –Tryphon 15:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.


I own this image. I am the president of the Secular Humanist League of Brazil and the maker has granted me full usage. EliVieiraAraujo (talk) 21:47 April 11 2011 (BRAZIL).

Not undeleted. - as long as a file has not yet been deleted, we are unable to undelete - Jcb (talk) 20:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Four examples of stalemate.pngEdit

A chessboard is PD and a chessposition needs no source if it´s not from a game. So deleting was wrong. SteMicha (talk) 19:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Chessboard is PD-ineligible, pieces and arrangement are not. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
How could the position of pieces in a game be a copyrightable idea? That'd be grounds to delete any image which shows a strategy in a sport. The design of the pieces is another issue though. - Floydian (talk) 20:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
The pieces were designed about 150 years ago, so they are definitly free. But if you leave that board deleted, most of these files would have to be deleted too. SteMicha (talk) 21:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I have undeleted the image briefly to examine it.

  • There is no author or source listed, which is the reason it was deleted.
  • While it is true that the general look of chess pieces is old, these particular icons are recent digital drawings -- they are not scans of old work -- and have enough detail so that they will have their own copyright, just as a new representation of a Coat of Arms has a copyright, even though the blazon is PD.
  • The colors chosen for the board are unconventional.
  • As Mattbuck says, the arrangements required creative thought.
  • Although not important to this discussion, I note for the record here that it was deleted in June 2008 and, except for my brief examination, has not been looked at since.

I conclude that this plainly has a copyright in the USA and without author or source, we cannot keep it.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

First of all, Jim, you know you (as an admin) can view a deleted image without having to restore it, right? Second of all, the chess icons shown are about as generic as they get; I would be stunned to find they have copyright. And chess positions are not copyrightable, especially if the board merely shows a factual representation of a position from an actual game. There's no creative content here that I can see. Powers (talk) 01:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree that they are similar to ones we have seen many times -- but that does not mean they do not have a copyright. As I pointed out above, a new representation of a Coat of Arms or flag, drawn from the blazon, will have new copyright. If the knight and rook from this set were on a COA, they would have a copyright, so why not here?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Couple of generic comments:
  • Colors chosen for the board are irrelevant to copyright.
  • The arrangement, in a single chess diagram, is not relevant -- you are representing a game situation (an idea), and there is really only one or limited ways to arrange that situation, so there is basically no creativity in the arrangement whatsoever. Otherwise you are arguing that once someone thinks of a chess situation, nobody else is allowed to illustrate that situation. That doesn't work. On the other hand, it's possible a specific series of game situations may be an issue.
  • I can't see the picture, so I have no idea how detailed the icons are, but copyright is a possibility there. Although, the basic standard icons would be PD -- they are common symbols.
  • For this type of thing though, I would prefer to not copy graphics from someone else's site. If this is just representing a chess game situation, it is far better to reconstruct the game situation using plainly free graphics -- we must have some. Particularly if there is no source or author listed... while it may not be required for PD-ineligible reasons, it's always good to credit who did the work. The PD-ineligible line in some countries can differ, so it may still be relevant to the copyright status for re-users. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Restored PD-ineligible, as Carl Lindberg explains above. If you disagree, please make a proper deletion request. Yann (talk) 15:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.


I request the undeletion of this file. I'm afraid the licensing may have been in question, but because this is my first time using Wikimedia Commons, I may have gotten it wrong. I have full rights to use this picture.

Thank you!
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessfeldish (talk • contribs) 16:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

You say:

"I have full rights to use this picture."

That is not the same thing as owning the copyright -- the right to use it does not give you the right to license it to others as must happen here.

Let's start at the beginning -- are you the photographer? If so, it is easy. If not, then the photographer, not you, must provide an acceptable license to Commons.

The default, and recommended, Commons licensing is to use both CC-BY-SA-3.0 and GFDL. Alternately, you may chose any other license acceptable to Commons.

I have temporarily undeleted the image. Assuming you are, in fact, the photographer, please add an appropriate license to the description -- don't worry about getting the template right, one of us will clean it up, but you must be the one who actually edits the description to show the license(s) you want.

If, on the other hand, you are not actually the photographer, please have the photographer follow the procedure at Commons:OTRS.

In either case, please leave a note here. If you have any questions, just leave a note here. And please sign your posts with four tildes ~~~~ which adds a signature and time/date stamp, much like the one which follows this.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

 Not done, the requester did not follow-up. –Tryphon 08:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.


the image file is present in all Italian schools of the Sophia University of Rome and it is public domain. The file is in my possession and published under a free license on flickr. best regards

Domenicoderchia (talk)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The file was deleted by Adrignola for lack of permission since November 21, 2010. The source site has an explicit "Copyright© - Tutti i diritti riservati" on every page. Since Domenicoderchia has not given us a link to the Flickr location, I can't check there, but unless it is an official Flickr account of the University, my guess is that it is Flickrwashing.
Since the subject is the current president of the University, the image is certainly not PD from age.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

 Not done, per Jim. –Tryphon 08:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Landsat imageryEdit

Please restore

Because of OTRS ticket 502425. -- 16:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Anybody? -- 17:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
The ticket is still open.--Trixt (talk) 21:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

 Not done. Will be handled by the OTRS team. –Tryphon 12:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.


This file has been recently deleted by User:Rastrojo explaining that this is a video relicensed from TVE by the video uploader. But this is not true, as this video is an official speech in the spanish Deputy Congress and so it can't be copyrighted by TVE, as this kind of speeches are on Public Domain and the image broadcasted by TVE is property of the spanish Congress. The original creator of the video, the basque left Ezker Abertzalea uploads all videos to youtube under cc-by-sa-3.0 license and this video is as property of the speaker's party as of TVE because it should be originally on Public Domain.

So I ask for it's undeletion. -Theklan (talk) 23:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The recording of the video is a protected work. "And so it can't be copyrighted by TVE" - of course it can and it will be, as long as you not provide a legal basis for the opposite. For what reason do you think it is public domain? The author is not one person as you say, the camera position is changing. Also the authorship is disputable by the television station logo, the claimed author is not an employee of that company and therefore not an camera operator, director or whatever of the recording production. So that one person can not release the video under any license anywhere. --Martin H. (talk) 10:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, as you shall know spanish author laws are quite twisty. But I can provide some examples of why this work should be here and not deleted. First of all, all works such as laws, spanish official bulletins or civil norms are on public domain. Furthermore, if someone's work is included on an official government publication (as for example a map on a public work licitation) it is now on Public Domain. The text is as follows:
Artículo 13. Exclusiones No son objeto de propiedad intelectual las disposiciones legales o reglamentarias y sus correspondientes proyectos, las resoluciones de los órganos jurisdiccionales y los actos, acuerdos, deliberaciones y dictámenes de los organismos públicos, así como las traducciones oficiales de todos los textos anteriores.
Is to say, the delliberations made for discussion on public organisms are not enforced by copyright laws. Even the translations of this works can't be copyrighted.
You claim that the camera operators are more than one and even someone has put the TVE logo in the image. But this is also excluded for copyright on 31st article:
31: Exclusión:
1.- No se incluirá en los derechos de la obra, a los operarios intermediarios que reproduzcan la obra parcialmente con fines para su distribución.
2.- No se incluirá en los derechos de la obra la grabación y reproducción de la obra una vez esta ha sido divulgada cuando el uso que se hace de dicha grabación es destinada a personas discapacitadas y sin animo de lucro.
So, TVE workers can't be included on the final copyright, as they are only intermediate operaries for the distribution of the work, that is, IMHO, PD.
And finally, this images are not property of TVE even they have the logo, as CNN or other televisions are also making the SAME broadcast with the same images. Is to say, the images are not self-production but broadcasting of a image provided by the Deputy Congress. -Theklan (talk) 11:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
The work we talk about here, the audiovisual recording, is non of the works narrowly defined in Article 13. The Article 31 is quoted here out of context. Art. 31 refers to cases when reproduction of protected material not requires authorization. According to the law the authorization is not required for de minimis and reproduction of protected works in the media as accessory parts, reuse for private non-commercial purposes, reuse in the public interest by the administration or jurisdiction, non-profit reuse en beneficio de personas con discapacidad. Thats by far not any purpose, especially not commercial purposes. But any purpose is what we require here, see Commons:Project scope#Required licensing terms. The respective owner, no matter who created it and if its a public body or not, can claim copyright protection, this audiovisual recording is not public domain and the CC license claim is not reliable. --Martin H. (talk) 12:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

 Not done, per Martin H.Tryphon 19:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Christina B finger masturbation.jpgEdit

Per User_talk:Jcb#Out_of_scope_.3F.3F.3F. Jcb fails to explain why this is "clearly" out of scope and for example these sheep near a road or this image which was kept by him not; although he claims that the deleted image "clearly doesn't have educational value". Thanks --Saibo (Δ) 14:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Category:Female masturbation has two more pictures that pretty much show the same. On them you at least can't see her facial expression that well. Or do you honestly think that somebody who is really masturbating looks so sad? About the educational value: the deleted pic does not show masturbation, as masturbation is about pleasure, not about depression. So why not simply use one of the other two? Or is from those two the one where she is recognisable tio depressing as you can actually see the living conditions (walls that urgently need paint, the furniture just some planks and stacks, the TV and clothes very cheap, and let's better forget the floor). -- Cecil (talk) 16:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Clearly from the talk page of Jcb, it is evident that this is/was a controversial deletion. It should be undeleted now, and deleted by proper discussion if it is indeed out of scope. - Floydian (talk) 17:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Honestly, please read what you did just write: "two more pictures that pretty much show the same" ... sorry, it is not Commons' job to have only the "best" pictures. we have about 3000 pictures of the statue of liberty. Let's delete 2998 (numbers exaggerated a bit)! Perfect to also have a picture of someone in bad living conditions. Oh, it is not? okay - censorship, here we come! Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 22:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, interesting that you only concentrated on the other two pics I mentioned as still being here as useable. My argument against the actually concerned image you completely ignored. So I am assuming that you simply have no argument against it and tried to hide it by putting the focus away from it by using exaggeration. So, I Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose the restoring. The image has no educational value as it is staged in a very bad way. -- Cecil (talk) 23:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
By the way the poor conditions that you just tried to use with the killership-argument 'censorship' are not visible on the deleted pic, only on the still existing one. -- Cecil (talk) 23:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I really do not know why you mean that this picture could not show masturbation. Even if it does not. Well, then it shows genital manipulation out of boredom or sadness. Why not keep such pictures? Please excuse me - I cannot comment on the images' details as I cannot see it for a very obvious reason. And yes, I am fed up with the attempts here again and again everywhere to censor pictures. Why can't we all do more useful things? Like categorizing thousands of British sheep images? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 01:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
"Not in use" as a reason? Good - delete 99,3% of Commons. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 22:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I doubt that, where do you have taken that number from? --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Just a quick and biased guess. Since the number really is of interest also for me I have made an experiment: File:Commons file use stats 2011-03-11.pdf - about 35 % of all files on Commons seem to be in article use. I am really surprised about the result. Either the random is not random or I am dealing too often with rather new files (which are - of course - not often in use). I really had estimated the in use count not that high... I had guessed it to about 5% or less. Maybe I will redo this experiment in the future. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 02:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, instead of your 99,3 % to app. 65 % (this number is also uncertain), so you just claimed to know it...--Yikrazuul (talk) 17:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes the number is uncertain - but: give me a better number! ;) It is not my problem if you do not understand my irony (which I made with the 99,3%). However, it is irrelevant if we are talking about 99,3 % or ~65 % which are not in use as "not in use" is no reason for deletion. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 01:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose "Masturbation" is just an unfounded assertion designed solely to avert the claim (out of scope). Besides, source/licence not reliable or available, respectively. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I ask you again: why is it "out of scope"? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 22:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - the image is just vulgar and has no educational value - Jcb (talk) 22:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Once more: why does it have no educational value but those stupid sheep have? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 22:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Just for fun: did you know that in the whole category Sheep we have lots of detail shots, and also images showing that sheep can live on hills and mountains and flat areas, next to lakes, houses, rocks and in the back of beyond, and even on train-routes (probably not for long), but until now we had not one pic showing that they can also grow right next to a highway and eat the grass saturated by exhaust fumes. Lets hope, they are not marketed as organic sheep. -- Cecil (talk) 00:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Just for fun: did you know that in the whole Category:Female masturbation we have lots of detail shots, and also images showing that females can masturbate on tables and beds and flat areas, next to lakes, in houses, on rocks and in the back of beyond, and even in trains (probably not for long), but until now we had only two pics showing that they can also masturbate on the floor right before a tv screen in a room where some paint is needed? I guess the sheep can be marketed as organic sheep - at least they are outside and eat real grass. ;) --Saibo (Δ) 01:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Per Cecil. I also have my doubts that this woman is actually masturbating. She looks so sad and that gives me doubts about her willing to have this image online. Somehow the whole scene has something abusive to me so I would rather not have it restored. Amada44  talk to me 07:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. It appears this came from a pretty much anonymous (former) Flickr user about whom I believe we known nothing (correct me if I'm wrong), and I think that is poor sourcing for this sort of image. However, I disagree entirely with the "scope" argument against it (I'm with Saibo on that), and if we had a similar image that was sourced in a way that I was confident that there were no legal/moral rights problems, I would want to keep the image. - Jmabel ! talk 08:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Happy enough for Commons? File:Christina_flashing_boobs.jpg File:Christina_B_fingering.jpg
  • Public enough so we can assume she does like to have her photos in public? File:Christina B nude on public road.jpg File:Christina_B_public_nudity2.jpg File:Christina_B_public_nudity.jpg File:Christina B public nudity4.jpg File:Christina_B_public_nudity3.jpg
  • The flickr account was named "Christina Madsen" so it could even be her real name. I like to emphasize:
    • I am directly with the deleters here if we know anything that the licensing is not correct. But based on the bits we know it is all allright. Sadly we cannot check the account for signs of uploading not own pictures - but this has to be checked before a flickr account is closed. We do not have and require a "extended flickr review" template. A bot's confirmation is enough for us currently - not nice - but we simply do not have the manpower to have a extensive license review on every image transferred from flickr. So - just in case - do not think of just claiming "this is flickr washing" without any evidence now.
    • I really do not care much about the picture(s) (for some reason apparently only one is out of scope) - but I care for them very much as being representatives of the sum of media we have on Commons which is threatened again and again by the manhunt against pictures of humans which happens here on Commons. Btw: More 20 minutes (I have checked the watch) no sheep pictures categorized, no files moved from local projects to Commons, not helped newbies, not tagged src=google copyvios .... :-( --Saibo (Δ) 23:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
      • I support the view of Saibo. I have not seen the picture so won't defend it, but I think the arguments about "out of scope" seem quite weak (and they were non-existing in the deletion debate). On the other hand those wanting to undelete the image should have participated already in the deletion debate, which was open for a month. --LPfi (talk) 08:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
        • If you would see the picture you would probably understand the out of scope reason. Jcb (talk) 10:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
        • I am sure you know how many deletion debates we have here - if I had seen / noticed it I would have. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 18:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Is it not a little bit strange that most of those "thrustworthy" FlickR-uploaders suddenly disappear with her uploaded pictures few months later? Does anyone concern about COM:PEOPLE?
About the scope: In my opinion, all those "Christina B"-pictures are useless. What do they show in a educational view? Why does commons need those pictures at all costs? What exactly can we learn about 6 "Look, I am nude in the public" (?) pictures? What is so important about the picture flashing boobs? In my opinion, this is spam, in a way exhibitionism. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Yikrazuul, it is not very useful that you have started another discussion now (the deletion discussion). Two discussions for exactly the same is burning time. So please put a "wait" tag in the DR. --Saibo (Δ) 17:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Beg for pardon, but what kind of tag? --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Just a message with a link to this discussion here. So the DR can wait until this discussion here is over. Otherwise exactly the same discussion would take place at the DR.
Regarding your new arguments for deletion: I have already said my bits to the flickr thing. COM:People? Sorry - someone who is dancing naked on the street and apparently has published the pictures in flickr? What use they have? The most obvious use is simply to illustrate "exhibitionism". Also I ask you the opposite way round: why do you want to delete all pictures of human at all cost? Sadly Jimbo was not successful in his raid (10 months ago), hm? ;) Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 18:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Jcb hac closed a lot of DR's with a bad argument. The image is clearly not "out of scope". Since when is masturbation "out of scope"? There may be a lot of other reasons for deleting this image and if the admin (here Jcb) that closes a DR would use a proper reason for (not) deleting we would save a lot of time... --MGA73 (talk) 19:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, but you would like to delete it? If so - why then? And for some reason quite many of those commenting here seem to think it is out of scope (although they cannot tell why). Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 02:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The point is, that you donna answer to arguments, instead just repeating all the time your opinion. We are not talking about Jcb, or other deletion debates closed by Jcb !

More and more I get the impression that you cannot give evidence (hard facts) for certain claims like licence or personal right issues, but e. g. only your "she knows what she does" assumptions that contradict COM:PRP. In addition, you haven't provided us with any argument for your "in scope" agenda, instead comparing one DR with another.

Taken together we should reconsider the obsessive use of doubtful FlickR-images, also in the context that commons is not a database and a platform for distributing images of any kind. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Please check your arguments in the DR "No educational value, COM:PORN, source unknown.". When that argument was rejected the other arguments came. With Flickr images we can never know. But either we trust the uploader and keep the images or we do not trust and we delete them all. Just deleting a single image with the reason it is porn or it is out of scope is wrong if you ask me. Commons is not censored and Jcb should know that - instead he said "the image is just vulgar and has no educational value". If masturbation is vulgar - so be it. But that is not a good reason to delete.
Another argument is that we have 2 similar files. Well if this photo is not in scope then similar files are not in scope. Also where is the rule that Commons is only allowed to have 2 similar files and if we have 3 then one has to be deleted?
You asked why it is so important. Well a single file is not important. I could ask: Why is it so important to delete the file? --MGA73 (talk) 19:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Your first point is wrong, cos my arguments have never been rejected nor answered (déjà-vu). In addition, you are not argumenting ("censorship"), besides neglecting very important issues like license and personal rights. It is not my duty to show the usuability of that pictures, hence your last question is also inadequate.
So, the only thing left of your statement that would be discussalbe is: But either we trust the uploader and keep the images or we do not trust and we delete them all. Funny, this is manipulating because there are more than just your two options. For instance, a basic rule should be that pictures of FlickR have to be checkable and we must be able to contact the authors if there are problems. The scope issue can then be discussed.
If you have doubts of pictures, you are free to start a deletion request. With more and more single purpose accounts stealing photos, commons would surely benefit form being a little bit more critical. --Yikrazuul (talk) 21:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
"If masturbation is vulgar" - @MGA73, this is your conclusion, I didn't say anything in general about masturbation, I was just talking about this single image. If you have serious difficulties with the clear understanding of English, please be aware of that. Jcb (talk) 22:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I think I understand English well enough. May I suggest that you concider if your descriptions when closing DR's are good enough? You have been reported to COM/AN quite a few times for your closures. Perhaps there is a reason for that. --MGA73 (talk) 11:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
@Yikrazuul: "licence or personal right issues" - no problem here - as I had said above. Licensing is fine as far as we can check now. There is no policy that we cannot keep flickr images of closed accounts - that would contradict our aims and free content. So do not claim the opposite. Personal rights do not seem an issue as she was happily walking down the street naked and apparently has put the images online on her own. You do not need to repeat that I do not give "hard facts". I had answered the relevant questions. And just because you do not never ever want to create a article, wikibook, blafoo whatever where such "porn"(not my description of it!) images could be useful you do not need to delete them. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 01:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
So, you don't have any proofs, do you? What I see are your assumptions.
  • It would contradict our aims if we kept images under an unclear license. I have to repeat: As you cannot give proof, we have to follow COM:PRP.
  • "She was happily walking..." blalba, well, are you the woman? Does she give permission? Does she even know that everyone can see her? I have to repeat: you don't have any proof, so we have to follow COM:PEOPLE.
  • "I had anwered the relevant questions." You have done nothing, your assumptions are irrelevant.
  • "you do not never ever want to create a article". This is nonsense, and has nothing to do with that debate. Besides, that does not allow us to keep untrustworthy pictures of any kind.
Grosso mode: Close debate, since no true arguments from the "keep"-fraction" have been provided! --Yikrazuul (talk) 11:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I had thought you could resist on trying to "vote" for censorship here by using licensing and personality rights arguments once you see that the porn!!! argument does not work. But, you have successfully proven be wrong and did it.
Enough time wasted here - undelete the files now. I will not repeat my answers from above. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 02:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I see no overwhelming support for undeletion. Jcb (talk) 02:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This file deals with masturbation and masturbation needs illustrations as ANY subject. Moreover the file was of good quality. Some say it wasn't used. So what ? Unused doesn't mean useless. Commons is not only made for illustrating Wikimedia projects but also for providing various pictures on the subjects developped on Wikimedia projects. How useful would it be to mention a link to Commons on a Wikipedia article if the reader only finds the files used in the article ?! This is a clear abuse of deletion. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 21:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral The image is not out of scope but merely misnamed. It does not depict masturbation, but merely a seated black woman spreading her vulva to expose her vagina. It may not have any immediate purpose but it could serve a purpose in any number of pornography related articles. Claiming the woman was being photographed involuntarily seems like speculation. However I am concerned about our inability to contact the author or even check the source for license laundering, so for that reason alone I won't support undeletion. Dcoetzee (talk) 03:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Dcoetzee, then let's delete all flickr pics from closed accounts. And: forbid upload of flickr pics as serving as a temporary flickr mirror is not Commons aim. Sorry, that argument is invalid as explained above. We have to check flickr pics before they are removed from flickr for laundering. Please see my cmt above (23:55, 9 March 2011).
So this picture is not deleted because of "out of scope" but is deleted because it is currently difficult to check the license status? --Saibo (Δ) 13:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not opposing undeletion. I wouldn't support deletion either. I am neutral like I said. Dcoetzee (talk) 11:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

By the way File:Christina_B_public_nudity.jpg is clearly a significantly altered photo. Take a good look at the face. Makes me wonder a bit what's going on here. - Jmabel ! talk 15:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe a lens flare? I do not know what this is. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 16:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

 Not done - consensus seems to be not to undelete, but that the DR should have been closed with a better explanation. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm closing on the basis that this is not particularly good quality pornography, and seems unlikely to be used for educational purposes, merely purient ones. I do agree that masturbation and nudity should be covered as with any subject, and I don't believe we should have special rules about them apart from an identifiable people clause. Further, the non-usage is not an issue here. Nor is obscenity, vulgarity, etc. We have other less staged photos to illustrate the subject. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your clarification. However, just unlikeliness for "educational purposes" seems a bit too weak for deletion. Same for the reason "We have other less staged photos to illustrate the subject". Editorial choice is not Commons' job. We keep hundreds of photos of statues. Here even the object photographed is different every time. A the statue of liberty we do not delete because of such reasons. Why here? --Saibo (Δ) 15:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Educational purposes is the entire reason Commons exists. That which is not educational is out of scope. But I really should have known better than to try and stop an argument here. Sigh... carry on... -mattbuck (Talk) 16:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes but it is “educational” (COM:PS) - no reason to exclude photographs of humans. The scope is very broad and very unsharp. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 18:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes of course, every picture is educational, even those without a proper license. Because commons is a database for every useless picture now, we have to get rid of deletion discussions at all asap!
Until now, noone has explained the educational value of that picture, and the only one want to keep that picture is not answering to arguments. Tough luck.
So vast majority does not want to keep it, why should we disucss so long for nothing? --Yikrazuul (talk) 11:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
By repeating your arguments to not get more valid. EOD for me with you. --Saibo (Δ) 19:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose There is no added value by having this picture added back into the system. There are enough educational photos on the topic matter. Seems we have turned this into a nitpicking or boogerpicking competition. There is so much that we can do around here to add value, and instead we are here to split hairs, infinitives and vaginal lips? Are we there yet?  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes, seems we are at censored commons. Too many of those bad, bad pictures are not good for the humanity. --Saibo (Δ) 19:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
      Grow up Saibo. Our opinion is just as valid, and doesn't need or benefit from the snide comments.  — billinghurst sDrewth 16:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
      Yes, apparently some are not grown up from the 19th century and delete everything they do not like. But, sure, let the censorship continue - I do not need to do more useful things at Commons than recovering censored pictures although I would like to. Some other users already went away. --Saibo (Δ) 03:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Deleted Flickr accounts break an evidence-of-consent-chain that IMO is required to satisfy US laws for this kind of image if we claim not to be "secondary publishers". 99of9 (talk) 12:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Such a great law, isn't it? If it really applies then WMF just needs to move servers to a more free country. That easy. That is no reason to censor all pictures some people don't like. --Saibo (Δ) 19:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Since it's that easy, go ahead and move the servers, and when you're done, come back and we can undelete for you. 99of9 (talk) 11:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
        • I am no server admin employed at WMF. --Saibo (Δ) 03:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Button contest speedy.jpgEdit

It wasn't a duplicate, but the source of File:Speedy delete contest button.png (which now has a red link for a source). We usually keep the original, even if it's very close to its derivatives, in order to maintain the license path and the history of modifications. –Tryphon 10:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, but what's the sense in keeping a file which isn't used and isn't supposed to be used?!? axpdeHello! 10:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Like I said, to maintain the license path and the history of modifications. We have {{Superseded}} to indicate that a better alternative exists. –Tryphon 10:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
How about listing old information like FileUploadBot does when uploading files from other projects? Those local files are deleted, too! axpdeHello! 10:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
But in that case it's the exact same file, with the same information about source, author and license. In the case of a derivative work, there is the original on one hand, with its own source, author and license, and there is the derivative work on the other hand, that can have a different author and license, and whose only source is the original file. And if anyone wants to create another derivative, they will most likely want to use the original file. –Tryphon 19:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done --Trycatch (talk) 00:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Brazilian moneyEdit

A long time ago there was a debate concerning brazilian money. These day I took a look in our legislation and found out that brazilian money belongs to the Union (Industrial Property Law (Law 9.279 of May 14, 1996, Section II Section 124), and all the works subsided by the Union are not their domain (Law 9.610 of February 16 2008, Title I Article 6). They are in public domain. So I request the images below being undeleted according to this. Mizunoryu (talk) 14:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

File list
  1. Image:BRA009.JPG
  2. Image:BRA017.JPG
  3. Image:BRA018.JPG
  4. Image:BRA019.JPG
  5. Image:BRA020.JPG
  6. Image:BRA036.JPG
  7. Image:BRA037.JPG
  8. Image:BRA038.JPG
  9. Image:BRA039.JPG
  10. Image:BRA040.JPG
  11. Image:BRA041.JPG
  12. Image:BRA042.JPG
  13. Image:BRA048.JPG
  14. Image:BRA049.JPG
  15. Image:BRA051.JPG
  16. Image:BRA052.JPG
  17. Image:Brazil 2006 circulating coins.jpg
  18. Image:Brazil coins.jpg
  19. Image:R$0,05 frente.jpg
  20. Image:R$0,05 fundo.jpg
  21. Image:R$0,10 frente.jpg
  22. Image:R$0,10 fundo.jpg
  23. Image:R$0,10.jpg
  24. Image:R$0,25 frente.jpg
  25. Image:R$0,25 fundo.jpg
  26. Image:R$0,50 frente.jpg
  27. Image:R$0,50 fundo.jpg
  28. Image:R$1,00 - moeda.jpg
  29. Image:Anísio cédula.jpg
  30. Image:Brazilian Real banknotes.jpg
  31. Image:Cemcruzeiros-pedroII.JPG
  32. Image:Cemmilcruzeiros-beijaflor.JPG
  33. Image:Cincomilcruzados-portinari.JPG
  34. Image:Cinqüentacruz-drummond.jpg
  35. Image:Dezcruzados-rui.JPG
  36. Image:Dezcruzeiros-getulio.JPG
  37. Image:Dezmilcruzeiros-vital.JPG
  38. Image:Doiscruzeiros-caxias.JPG
  39. Image:Duzentoscruzeiros-republica.JPG
  40. Image:Milcruzados-massis.jpg
  41. Image:Milcruzeiros-rondon.JPG
  42. Image:Quinhentoscruz-ruschi.JPG
  43. Image:Quinhentoscruzados-villalobos.JPG
  44. Image:Quinhentosmilcruzeiros-mario.JPG
  45. Image:Real11.jpg
  46. Image:Umcruzeiro-marques.JPG
  47. Image:Umcruzeiro-rep.JPG
  48. Image:Real11.jpg
  49. Image:BrazilP247a-100Reais-(1994)-donatedsrb f.jpg
  50. Image:Cedulas Cruzado Novo.jpg
  51. Image:50 reais reverso.png
  52. Image:50 reais anverso.png
  53. Image:X reis 1816.jpg
  54. Category:Bills of Brazil

Symbol support vote.svg Support undeletion. There seems to be no legal impediment to the undeletion.Afil (talk) 20:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support undeletion. Per Afil. Electron <Talk?> 08:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Seems like this undeletion request sleeps, so making a start. The first of your link states that money is ineleigble for registration as a pt:Marca, that section does not make the money a work by (or belonging to) anyone. Also the ineligibility of money for trademark registration does not mean that it is exempted from copyright, thats something different. I dont see how this findings have any effect here. --Martin H. (talk) 20:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The Portuguese word used is "obra", which simply means "work". It does not specify the type of government work that is public domain, simply that works of the government are PD. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 01:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to discuss it furthermore. I lost my mood to do it on Wikimedia projects. So, I don't care anymore. What the community decide it's okay for me. But we got the terms of use via OTRS. See Template:Money-BR (updated). Mizunoryu (talk) 02:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose undeletion and, in fact, suggest deletion of {{Money-BR}}. So far, I have not seen any evidence that would support the assumption that Brazilian money was not subject to copyright. I have also not seen any evidence that the Brazilian government could not be a copyright owner.
  • The first link given by User:Mizunoryu, Industrial Property Law (Law 9.279 of May 14, 1996, Section II Section 124), just says that coins and banknotes cannot be registered as trademarks. It doesn't say anything at all about copyright. Unsurprisingly, as the cited law is not a copyright law.
  • The second link, Law 9.610 of February 16 2008, Title I Article 6, which is the Brazilian copyright law, does not say Brazilian "governmental works" were PD. It says that works that were merely subsidized by the Union, the States, the Federal District or the municipalities shall not be in "their domain". This just means that copyrights on such subsidized works remains with their authors and are not automatically transferred to the subsidizing (governmental) party. It does not mean subsidized works or "governmental works" in general were PD.
  • I have also seen claims that the Brazilian government could not hold copyrights because it was not a natural person. While only natural persons can be authors, there's nothing anywhere in the Brazilian copyright system that would prohibit a body corporate to hold copyrights (more precisely: the economic rights) on a work. That'd be rather unusual anyway. What typically happens in countries where I'm familiar with this is that the employment contract stipulates that the economic rights on a work created by an employee as part of his/her employment are automatically assigned to the employer. Furthermore, Lei 9.610/98 for some cases treats legal entities as "authors" (see article 11, sole paragraph). Finally, let me point out that the Brazilian Ministry of Culture claims "© 2010 Ministry of Culture" on its web site (with a CC-BY-NC-ND-2.0-br license), which may serve as an indication that governmental agencies of Brazil can hold copyrights.
  • In fact, the Brazilian copyright law is about to be revised, and there was a public consultation going on this summer about the proposed changes. The proposed revision of Lei 9.610/98 adds a whole new chapter on "Works Produced on Commission or Resulting from an Employment Relationship" that spell out this contractual copyright assignment to the employer, and that explicitly includes public entities. See Article 52-A(I) of the proposed revision of Lei 9.610 (in Portuguese). An English version of this proposed revision also exists.
In summary: it looks to me as if Brazilian money is copyrighted, and that the Brazilian government and its agencies can and do hold copyrights. Hence {{Money-BR}} is misleading and/or wrong and should be deleted, and these files should not be restored. Lupo 12:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Whatever we decide, the result should be listed in a section at Commons:Currency. After examining the above analysis none of it is conclusive - all we have established is that the Brazilian government can hold copyrights; but then so can the US federal government (via copyright transfers from contractors), and most of their currency is public domain by law. I'd really like to get a definitive answer on this question before undeleting or deleting anything, ideally from the Brazilian Mint or a similar authority. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
    Seems that nobody is willing to contact the Brazilian authorities to get a definitive answer. Unless there is some statement to the effect that someone is going to do so, I would propose that this discussion is closed and noted as no decision to undelete, and can be re-addressed if further information can be provided from relevant sources.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

 Not done per billinghurst Ezarateesteban 11:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)