Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests

Current requests

File:Windows logo with wordmark.png

Category:Windows logos with wordmarks contains

• File:Windows 7 logo and wordmark.svg

Category:Microsoft Windows logos contains

• File:Windows logo - 2002–2012 (Multicolored).svg
• File:Windows Server 2003 logo without wordmark.svg

Therefore undelete File:Windows logo with wordmark.png to have a proper deletion discussion. 77.179.201.26 13:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Only File:Windows logo - 2002–2012 (Multicolored).svg is trivial. Two other files should be deleted. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:56, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

 Support undeletion of File:Windows logo with wordmark.png, the rest is also OK. @EugeneZelenko: please read DRs on these files. COM:Deletion requests/File:Windows Server 2003 logo without wordmark.svg and COM:Deletion requests/File:Windows 7 logo and wordmark.svg. We have a consensus that these files are below COM:TOO in the US. --Rezonansowy (talk) 07:19, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Greek_Royal_Arms_Small.svg

en:File:State COA of Kingdom of Greece.svg can't be moved to Commons via CommonsHelper due to ERROR: Warning. duplicate-archive : Greek_Royal_Arms_Small.svg. Probably the deleted old versions of Greek_Royal_Arms_Small.svg should be restored under the name of en.wp file. --XXN, 16:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

XXN, this is Commons:Undeletion Requests, which processes requests to restore deleted files. I'm not sure what you are looking for here. The subject file, File:Greek_Royal_Arms_Small.svg, exists on Commons and does not have any deletion tag on it, so there is nothing to Undelete. It is a considerably more nuanced version of the same coat of arms, so I think it would be a mistake to delete it in favor of File:State COA of Kingdom of Greece.svg which exists on WP:EN. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:00, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Please see the deletion log for this file. There should be one version identical to the named file from en.wp, or they really all were corrupt? --XXN, 19:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I think he's saying that old (now deleted) versions of File:Greek_Royal_Arms_Small.svg are identical to the current en:File:State COA of Kingdom of Greece.svg and which are preventing a transfer to Commons. That seems odd. But, I think it's actually old versions of File:Greek Royal Arms.svg which are the duplicate -- the current version is slightly different but they were tweaks done by the original author, so maybe just a file redirect is needed (and can be added to Commons). Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

The main problem is that the file from en.wp can't be deleted per {{nowCommons}} if here on Commons doesn't exist an identical version of that file. This is why I asked if those deleted versions could be restored. Then can be be done a history split. Ping @Magog the Ogre: what do you think? XXN, 19:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I think the initial version of File:Greek Royal Arms.svg is the same as the en-wiki file -- looks really close at least. It looks like the deleted versions from the file you are talking about ended up in File:Greek Royal Arms.svg . I wonder if a checking script found a deleted exact match, but doesn't continue to find a separate, existing exact match. But File:Greek Royal Arms.svg has since been updated (slightly)... does that prevent transfer? Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm thoroughly confused. Why are we talking about "transferring" a file which is already on Commons? This conversation is not clear at all. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 06:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

When en.wiki files slightly different to some Commons versions are tagged with NowCommons, that tag is declined by you. Apparently there was no one current Commons file version absolutely identical to the one from en.wiki, and the en.wiki file didn't had such a message in page footer: [1]. Even File:Greek Royal Arms.svg looks very similar, but there are some diferences. I didn't checked all it's versions at that moment, and I've tried to transfer that en.wiki file to not lose some potential valuable material, and also to not see revert addition of NCT. XXN, 11:30, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

The OP was trying to transfer en:File:State COA of Kingdom of Greece.svg I believe. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:27, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• Carl Lindberg, is right probably: first version of File:Greek Royal Arms.svg seems to be the same as the en.wiki file. But the CommonsHelper's was so confusing [2]. Tagged now that en.wiki file with {{Now Commons}}. No undeletion is needed here anymore. This case can be closed. XXN, 11:30, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

---

 Withdrawn nothing to do here. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:53, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Moteurs... Action! Stunt Show Spectacular

In many, if not most, of these pictures the buildings are only the background of the stunt action. Thus the de minimis principle applies. Sorry not to be more precise but I have no longer access to the images. One of the pictures (the first) was already proposed here for being restored. Thanks, Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:59, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

The ones where that argument is remotely plausible to me are:

• File:Disneyland Park 16, Paris 22 August 2013.jpg:  Neutral. A stretch, IMO... 1.
• File:Disneyland Park 19, Paris 22 August 2013.jpg: 2
• File:N2 Walt Disney Studios, Paris.jpg: 3
• File:Stuntmen_-_panoramio.jpg : 4

The others are all more or less like this and this. I am uncomfortable with most of those I listed above, but I'm known to have a more stringent de minimis threshold than many. Storkk (talk) 10:17, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment At least this is OK. In a normal place, these buildings would obviously be OK. Now I understand that these buildings have been recreated for a film set or show only purpose, so it may be different. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:18, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Yann... that file is already under consideration above. Storkk (talk) 10:38, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

•  Oppose Unlike the one above, where I have changed my mind and supported undeletion, these are much more images of the stage sets and less of the action in front. In one of them there is no action at all. Note also, that as Yann says, these are not buildings, but sets, so the ToO is much lower. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:10, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Looking at the whole lot, I think that some could be accepted with a slight crop at the top, so that the buildings are really de minimis. Yann (talk) 14:18, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

•  Oppose as is. In all of these the set is an important part of the image composition, with the action only taking place in a part of the image. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 07:55, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

File:AeroLiner3000 im Bild.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

• File:AeroLiner3000 im Bild.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: The images deleted are of my copyright. Where DLR is mentioned I do have the permission of DLR, I can also get that in written.. I am relatively new to wikipedia, what can I do to prevent such quick deletion? Arcinaut (talk) 18:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose The image appears without a free license at http://www.dlr.de/dlr/presse/en/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-10172/213_read-19326/#/gallery/24340 and the footnote "Credit:AndreasVoglerStudio".

If you are Andreas Vogler, please send a free license using OTRS from av@andreasvogler.com. You only need to do this once, as we will mark your user page with the fact that you have confirmed your identity. If you are not Andreas Vogler, then please explain here how it is that you own this copyright. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Ábránd.jpg.jpg

Please, undelete these files, I've sent an E-Mail to release the licence for these files:

File:Ábránd.jpg.jpg

File:Győzelem.jpg.jpg
File:Átalakulás.jpg.jpg
File:Térplasztika.jpg.jpg
File:Kek madár.jpg.jp
File:Tűzmadár.jpg.jpg
File:Szem.jpg.jpg
File:Gondolkodó.jpg.jpg
File:Emúlás.jpg.jpg
File:Nő fátyolban.jpg.jpg

Best regards, Dr. István Gyebnár copyright owner — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.59.168.153 (talk) 21:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

•  Oppose If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the file will be restored automatically when and if the email is received, processed, and approved. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be close to 3 days before the email is processed and the file is restored.

If the message was sent to the English language version of OTRS and the email has been properly received there the sender will receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Other language versions may or may not provide the automatic reply..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:38, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Advertising Subsidized ARKYD (artist's mockup).png

Please restore the following images:

• File:Advertising_Subsidized_ARKYD_(artist's_mockup).png
• File:Advertising_Subsidized_Red_Dragon_(artist's_mockup).jpg
• File:Artist's_Concept_of_Curiosity_Rover_Subsidized_by_Advertising.jpg
• File:Astronaut_in_Cupola_(artist's_concept).png
• File:Falcon_Projection_Advertising.png

These CC0 artists concepts are to be used in a forthcoming article on advertising subsidized space exploration. They were created by me using base images from SpaceX and NASA which are also CC0 (all NASA and SpaceX images are in the public domain as per the official policies of these institutions). Whatever instances there may be of these images on the web, they are all CC0 as I have of course released them to the public domain (for instance those on my personal blogs FactualFiction.com/marsartists, FactualFiction.com/lighthouse, and homestorynotes.FactualFiction, etc.). These images were obviously not created by either the BBC or ArsTechnica or wherever else they may be found via a reverse google image search. It would have been much more professional and helpful if the original admin had asked me about such other instances on the web prior to tagging these images for deletion...and initiating a very unpleasant, incredibly time-consuming process to ensure their undeletion. These were the first images I have contributed to Wiki Commons...in the future I will note the prior publication of such images on my blogs, and also note the public domain nature of their underlying images for composite concepts, but, it would have been helpful and professional if the original admin who tagged these images for deletion would have responded to my polite, specific addition of such information to the discussion pages for these images. Instead they have been deleted without further discussion at the cost of unnecessary time and effort.

Also, on the day they were tagged for deletion I contacted OTRS via email, and noted this on admin and image discussion pages, to no avail. I understand OTRS is run by volunteers but this entire avalanche of wasted effort could have been avoided if the original admin who tagged these images for deletion had asked the simple question, "are the base photos for these composites CC0? why are the on FactualFiction.com, etc, etc." -- rather than posting the results of an amateurish reverse image search. It seems that would have saved effort on the part of everyone.

Thank you for your time. Ericmachmer (talk) 22:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose As I said in the DR closings and to this user on my talk page, these were not deleted for copyvio, but for being out of scope. We do not keep personal art, parody, or speculation from non-notable artists.

I also commented there that we get 10,000 new images every day and must delete around 1,500 of them. Most of that work is done by ten Admins and, while it would be great if we could give personal service, we have a growing backlog and nothing like enough people to deal with it, much less give personal service. OTRS is the same, usually running a backlog of a month or more.

Finally, I noted there that not all SpaceX images available to the public are freely licensed. We have recently deleted some that an unauthorized person uploaded here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment Hi Jim, I feel these images were deleted prematurely without sufficient discussion. Links to public domain copyrights for the underlying images were provided in both the nomination for deletion discussion sections and on the discussion pages for each image. Scope was not originally raised as an issue. If it had been I would have addressed it promptly on the appropriate discussion pages, which although provided by Wikipedia apparently to forestall premature deletions seemed to have been used to no avail. No one responded to discussions on those pages prior to deleting the images. I would have thought at least the nomination for deletion pages would have sustained some manner of constructive discussion prior to deletion. It seems the discussion sections were useless.

To the extent copyright is no longer an issue as you say (base images are in SpaceX's CC0 Flickr photo stream and NASA public domain), if the scope of these images is in question, it should be noted they are intended for use in this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advertising_Space which ought to be updated to reflect new approaches to space-based advertising, new vehicles, historical events, proposed missions and so on. They are not a parody or personal art. Inasmuch as these images will be used for an already existent article on wikipedia, I think their scope should be open to further question by the entire wikipedia community -- initiated through updates to that page, rather than here in wiki commons. Scope was never initially raised as an objection to these concept images prior to your comment here. I can image any number of questions must arise for the thousands of images admins must sort through, and appreciate such effort, but it seems incredibly counterproductive not to discuss such issues on pages dedicated to discussion of the images prior to their deletion. Ericmachmer (talk) 21:22, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

[Sorry if it is inappropriate to discuss this further here...in the preview of this page an "udelh" tag appeared but I am unsure if that applies to the following "File:Scuba diver1.jpg" discussion which does seem resolved. Should I open a new ticket to discuss the "scope" issue? Thanks.]

 Oppose I too have tried to explain the scope on this user, who seems to have a lot to say but simply does not understand. The page he mentions above is about a Music Album ""Advertising Space" is a song by British pop singer Robbie Williams, " and has nothing to do with Space. While I am sure the user is well intended, the user has already resorted to name calling and seems to ignore all other efforts by both Jim and myself to get point across. I have another concern frankly speaking regarding WP:SOCK as the comments might seem to infer a more seasoned user... --Don (::::::talk) 01:55, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

 Comment Scope...the page mentioned is this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_advertising it does not pertain to music. I have not yet given up hope on Jim, but obviously this has been an odd experience. A music album named "Advertising Space"? Really? --My real question is: why couldn't this have been resolved politely without insinuation, without condescending commentary left on my talk page, without you Don even becoming involved -- if a week and a half ago Ellin had responded professionally? I left clear comments on the discussion pages for each of the images, and, on the discussion sections of their nomination for deletion pages, and, on the talk page of Ellin, the admin who nominated them for deletion in the first place. Polite, professional, clear, useful, constructive comments. Look them up. They were professional, constructive. They were ignored. What are the discussion sections for then? Why weren't they used by admins before deletion? What is the point of Ellin leaving absurd links claiming prior usage of the images -- links to my personal blog -- if she doesn't respond to my simple polite clarifications?? I left commentary there in good faith, on multiple discussion pages, all in a polite straightforward helpful manner. This has been an extremely unpleasant experience. Absolutely ridiculous. A British pop singer?? Really couldn't think that up. Amazing. Ericmachmer (talk) 04:06, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

 Comment As further evidence of their potential scope one would only need to read the full discussion started on Ellin's talk page...(the original polite discussion I attempted to start there has been deleted)...anyhow, Storkk wrote:

"That said, I concede that one or more could be in scope for Space advertising, possibly in the "Criticism" or "Popular culture" sections. Storkk (talk) 18:22, 17 December 2016 (UTC)"

My opinion is that such questions of scope should be left to the wikipedia community, not a few admins here at wiki commons (one of whom apparently believes these images are for a music album). Scope for images to be used in the article on Space Advertising probably ought to be determined through the article's page. It is certainly not solely the purview of admins here. Scope was not even raised as an issue by Ellin when she laboriously misattributed these images to the BBC, Ars Technica, etc...and, amazingly, to my blog. This has been a ridiculous, amateurish, waste of time. Wiki commons and wikipedia are worse as a result.Ericmachmer (talk) 04:46, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Scuba diver1.jpg deleted without sufficient time to discuss

The file has been in use on English Wikipedia for about 4 years, maybe longer. It was deleted before the notification message could reach me. This seems unnecessarily hasty. I do not even know what it looked like to try to find a replacement. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

@Matanya: Please clarify why this file was deleted two hours after being nominated. Thuresson (talk) 08:26, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

It was Matanya's original upload to Commons, but that isn't a reason to speedy a file that's been here for almost ten years and is in use. I  Support restoration at least to let the DR run its full week. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:50, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I could not find the source. The speedy was a judgement error, apologize for that. matanya • talk 16:43, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

---

 Done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 11:11, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Closing, deletion request is up at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Scuba diver1.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 22:28, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Касимов Расим Мустафа оглы.jpg

Причина удаления файла — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sevda K (talk • contribs)

@Sevda K: Please state a reason for why you think that file should be undeleted. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 09:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

@Sevda K: требуется письменное разрешение от фотографа следующие COM:OTRS/ru. Ankry (talk) 09:49, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Michael van Gerwen 2014.jpg

Files deleted because "Pieter Verbeek of those videos has a website at [3], which links to a different YouTube channel. Potential YouTube-washing." I asked the user to reconsider and they said I had some valid points worth considering as seen here. 80.235.147.186 08:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose Although this is probably OK, our standard of proof is "beyond a significant doubt", not "probably". Anyone can open YouTube and Google+ accounts in any name. The dartfreakz.nl site has an explicit copyright notice. So, there are two questions. Is Peet Beek actually Pieter Verbeek and does Verbeek have the authority to freely release images? In order to restore these we need a free license via OTRS from an authorized official of dartfreakz.nl from an e-mail address at dartfreakz.nl. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

They embedded videos on dartfreakz.nl from the Peet Beek account as seen here with the YouTube id aUZGs95MYVs at the bottom of the article so with their copyright notice they would regard those videos as acceptable. 80.235.147.186 18:55, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Daniel Cling 2010.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

• File:Daniel Cling 2010.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: I can't see the file so I don't know if the permission is sufficient, but the ticket OTRS 2016103110008493 exists and seems to be valid. Could you take a look? Thanks. kvardek du (la plej bela nombro) 10:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• • @Kvardek du: Ticket appears to be from subject rather than photographer. Storkk (talk) 10:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Example.jpg

Greetings,

Point #1, This researcher has authorized me to upload this image uploaded for the wikipedia page.

Point#2, I find communication style in this portal to be abrasive to say the least. I am not a robot. I am a human being developing an article for an interesting scholar of medical anthropology. I expect to be treated accordingly.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asr05008 (talk • contribs) 04:07, 18 December 2016 (UTC)