Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2008-02

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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

Image:Dornberger-Axter-von Braun.gif

[edit]

The deletion justification:

03:30, 4 January 2008 Rlevse (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Dornberger-Axter-von Braun.gif" ‎ (Dupe of Image:Dornberger-Axter-von Braun.jpg)

is false. The Image:Dornberger-Axter-von Braun.gif was not a duplicate and to claim so is a fabrication by Rlevse. In particular, the gif had more people pictured than Image:Dornberger-Axter-von Braun.jpg, which has two people missing on the left and is missing the face of the person on the right. Please restore the Image:Dornberger-Axter-von Braun.gif page and all the previous text which had the entire photo that was at http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b0/Dornberger-Axter-von_Braun.gif.

For comparison, refer to http://www.geschichteinchronologie.ch/atmosphaerenfahrt/11_Disney-Braun-d/1945-03-05-Dornberger-Axter-Braun-Lindenberg-nach-gefangennahme.jpg to see a copy of the image with all of the subjects.

Also, the page created by http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:CarolSpears at Image:Dornberger-Axter-von Braun.jpg mistakenly uses caption(s) that have the missing person(s) names.

Please inform Rlevse and CarolSpears of their oversight and to use sufficient attention to detail when comparing photos in the future. Thank you for your consideration

—the preceding unsigned comment was added by Mugs2109 (talk • contribs) 02:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've undeleted the image.
I don't know in what way I should change the caption. Perhaps you can do it yourself?
Fred J (talk) 22:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I have caused problems. I did a search of the 744 wiki and made sure that the image was not being used. I did not write that caption, I merely made sure that some of the templates were working. Heh, it was authored by the complaint registerer. Heh.
It would be nice to get a higher resolution jpeg of the image with the more people in it. I probably should also mention that I am sorry that I am sorry because it seems to be a sign of weakness or of 'I am not perfect' which does not have a place in this century. -- carol 00:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

Image:Miss Bosnia 07 Gordana Tomic.jpg and Image:Miss Bolivia 07 Sandra Hernandez.JPG

[edit]

Either there's a problem with all the pictures of category:Miss World 2007 either there was no problem with those 2 pictures also uploaded (and then probably taken) by Rosengurtt. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 21:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

please undelete this file,ihave been looking everywhere for it —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.101.65.188 (talk • contribs)
All the images appear to have a consistent exif and his website appears genuine ( http://www.rosengurtt.co.uk/ ). I would say restore. Megapixie 22:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neither one of these image had a license. Samulili 06:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know but the uploader must have forgotten it since it's clealry the same case as any other MW2007 picture he uploaded. So just be logical and add the same licence! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, we can't legally make such presumptions. Only the author can issue a licence, and they have to do so explicitly. We can undelete it and tag it as {{No license since}}, but unless the uploader specifies a licence, it'll have to be deleted again. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Admit it's a bit ridiculous! I'll try to contact the author... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 21:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am very sorry that I forgot to include the licence for these files. I uploaded more than 100 photos in a few days, and I made some mistakes. I am still not much familiar with Wikipedia and the content management system, so please be forgiving with my mistakes. I am not sure how to undelete or restore them now. I think I will upload new versions of the photos, that will be probably easier. In the future, please drop me a line before you delete any of my work.Rosengurtt 29 January 2008
✓ Done. Please add a licensing tag of your choice within seven days. Thank you for your contribution. (Notifications were given here and here before deletion.) —LX (talk, contribs) 22:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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


Image:Amy with dildo.jpg

[edit]

Deleted with that reason: incompatible flickr image, see Commons:Licensing. I really don't understand since the picture is labelled with a CC-BY licence on Flickr! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 19:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I checked it out and the license is OK, so I've restored the image. / Fred J (talk) 21:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

No heading

[edit]

i dont understand the system —the preceding unsigned comment was added by Noorazzizahomar (talk • contribs) 07:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's too bad.
 Not done, nothing to undelete. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Calkins Science Center

[edit]

This file has been deleted twice now. First time it was under the impression that I had no email verifcation. It was then reloaded up. Now it has been deleted because a guy couldnt keep his fingers away from the delete button when its still under OTRS pending. --Mihsfbstadium 17:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why this file was deleted again is because the permission you forwarded to OTRS was not sufficient. Please see COM:OTRS for what is needed for the permission to be sufficient. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 21:07, 18 January 2008 (GMT)
The next day I talked to my contact GRCC and had him send in the otrs form which he did that day. the email addy should be DDevries@grcc.edu. --Mihsfbstadium 21:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you not ask if there is another email coming or anything and just decide hey its been sitting here long enough lets delete. I been asking if you have checked for that email and nobody has said anything. Why cant we just undelete it until you can find the email. Is it that hard to take someones word that their is an email. Its getting fustrating wating for you admins to decide to even look. If you dont want to then I can just reload it up every few days until you can give me answer on this. --Mihsfbstadium 14:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have access to OTRS; someone else will have to look. All files here must have valid licensing, permission, and all that, so unless the permission is confirmed by someone who does have access to OTRS, the file has to stay deleted as missing permission. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 22:05, 22 January 2008 (GMT)
Has anybody looked yet. I told the email name and what not. I have received a single response yet about this. What makes me mad is that this picture has been deleted twice now and the fact that it was still in the process of being validated. Its not that I wasnt trying but I had my contact person send in an emial and now it seems that nobody wants to go look for me. I would look myself but uhm I am not an admin, and I know O would if he/she could. --Mihsfbstadium 06:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done. Sorry this has taken so long. --MichaelMaggs 09:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

a request

[edit]

i needed to have a copy of this file for my book report. i will totally appreciate if you will help me

 Not done nothing to restore. abf /talk to me/ 15:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Solutions_of_PDE [1]: deleted but contains files?

[edit]

Category:Solutions_of_PDE [2] was deleted but contains two files. Does that make sense?

✓ Done The category was empty when it has been deleted. I recreated it. --Christian NurtschTM 12:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:MacBook Air 1.jpg

[edit]

The photograph was deleted (and subsequently replaced with a pixelized version of little value) as a result of this request. The rationale is that it contains non-free imagery, but the content in question is not the image's principal subject; the computer itself is.
I discussed this matter with ABF (the deleting administrator), and he/she indicated that the deletion was based upon the argument by Rocket000 that "this is pretty much a screenshot of non-free software, which we delete." In fact, this isn't "pretty much a screenshot," as the clear purpose is to illustrate the computer, not to illustrate software.
Kaomso made this point by citing Commons:Derivative works, in which it's noted that a photograph of a child holding a stuffed Winnie the Pooh toy doesn't violate Disney's copyright unless the intended purpose is to show Winnie the Pooh. Clearly, this photograph's intended purpose isn't to display Homer Simpson; it's to display an operational MacBook Air computer. As noted by Kaomso, photographs of Times Square contain a considerable amount of incidental imagery that is non-free, but that doesn't mean that the photographs themselves are non-free (nor does it require us to black out or pixelize the content in question, thereby reducing the photographs' quality and authenticity). —David Levy 15:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC) [reply]

✓ Restored to original version. The original deletion request clearly has no consensus. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 04:10, 05 February 2008 (GMT)

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

Undelete Image:No_Israel.svg

[edit]
The image was not deleted for the reason you stated. It was only deleted because it fell out of project scope by not being of good use. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 02:39, 19 January 2008 (GMT)
‌ :), Image:No god.PNG has worst use. I don't care about it, I'm caring of fairing before deleting an image (Delete all, keep all)--OsamaK 11:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I prefer to delete all, except those with encyclopedic use. Naked female bodies, 14th century images of Muhammed, photos of penises with syphilis and photos of anti-gay protestors might be offensive to some people, but they have encyclopedic use. Self-created anti-logos, on the other hand, don't have encyclopedic value. / Fred J (talk) 12:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to agree. From en:Wikipedia:User pages#Inappropriate content: "Wikipedia is not a soapbox is usually interpreted as applying to user space as well as the encyclopedia itself. You do have more latitude in user space than elsewhere, but remember: don't be a dick about it." When the userboxes got out of control, there was widespread opposition to it.
A picture may be worth more than a thousand words, but sometimes it is still better to use your words. If for some reason it is absolutely crucial to your work at a Wikimedia project that others are aware of your opinions on Israel or God, then write them down if you must, but it's probably not in your own interest to use an image which some people will inevitably construe as wishing death upon all Jews or all religious people, rather than what you intended. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then let's delete all of them (the No/Anti-something) where they aren't being used in an encyclopedia article without further debate. NoGod for example is used in 100+ userboxes. If we leave it up to a deletion debate only unpopular anti beliefs are going to get deleted (as happened here), and others will be kept simply because they have more supporters (who will quite predictably pile onto commons to vote). There are only two fair possible outcomes, all deleted, all kept. Any attempt to walk a line in the middle will result in only popular anti beliefs having logos. Imagine if this debate was running in the 1950s, do you think an anti-segregation.svg would survive for more than 5 minutes ? Megapixie 00:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think they must be kept when they are using in articles (We don't care about its using in users pages, that's project admins' job). If people agree with that, I'll refuse undeleting (As long as other deleted) If they don't agree, I really support undelete it..--OsamaK 10:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree.
Images to keep would then include Image:No_smoking_symbol.svg & Image:Rauchen Verboten.svg (similar images; used in "no smoking" articles); Image:Anti-Nazi-Symbol.svg & Image:Hakenkreuz im Verbotsschild.svg (similar images; used in punk and swastica articles ); all anti-copyright images such as Image:Anti-copyright.svg (heavily used on templates, etc).
I would also like to keep images that are not offensive to anyone: no point in deleting images no-one wants to delete! That's just stupid and would reflect badly on Commons. For example, Image:ThereIsNoCabal.svg and Image:Carlb-sockpuppet-01a.jpg might not be offensive to anyone. "Commons sense" should be applied. Can you agree with me?
I agree with most of Megapixie's comment, but not that these logos should be speedy deleted to avoid people coming and giving their opinion. Don't you think people will come and give their opinion if they are all suddenly speedy deleted? Perhaps we should direct them all to you ;)
It is better to include anti-logos in Commons:Project scope, saying specifically that images that are have no encyclopedic value and are also offensive -- such as certain anti-logos -- are not suitable for Commons. Once this has been done, I suggest to nominate the anti-logos one by one, and if people are offended by them then delete. Deletion requests are not votes, so if 50 people think something is not offensive but 10 people think it is offensive still means it IS offensive to a large group of people (1/5).
My last point here is that it is important to use good judgement. Perhaps someone will put the anti-Japan image on an anti-Japan article just to keep it. I hope that eventhough some people say "oh we can't judge what is encyclopedic", I appeal to your common sense about what is truly encyclopedic and what is original research. If you can't make the distinction please tell me and I will explain to you in detail, with examples.
Ok that is my suggestion and it is open for comments and revision....
Fred J (talk) 15:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure what 'encyclopedic' has to do with the decision, this is Commons, not en:w :-). But I agree in so far as you mean that the images should be within the project scope and relevant to at least one of the wiki projects. If an anti-<insert your favourite country> logo has significant (or perhaps en:w 'notable') use, eg it is used by a large group of people in a public way (eg spray painted on walls through-out a region), the image obviously has some use in documenting things (most probably a conflict). A photograph of a graffitied wall might be more appropriate, but then there seems to be ridiculous concerns about violating the graffiti artist's copyright, so a diagrammatic representation (eg SVG) is appropriate. But we don't need to host a collection of 'anti' logos as a source of labels that people can plaster on things. --Tony Wills 23:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I may add my opinion (proper disclosure: I am Israeli), if this image was created or uploaded just for someone's userbox, then it should be deleted. Wikimedia projects have a policy of not supporting hatred or defamation. If this image shows an example of previously known anti-Israeli banner, and may be used in an article about Israel and its relations with other countries or communities, then it should stay. Drork 16:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done no encyclopedic use at all. I will ad somthing about this in the scope. Basic reason for my decission: Its unenclypedic because its not an official Work. If for example a Organisation aggainst Israel or something like this would have made this to its Logo and its free, it would be okay, because then it could be used in Wikipedia articles or whatever. The Image no XXX is in my oppinion as well out of scope, so I will request it for termination. abf /talk to me/ 14:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Abu Ghraib 29.JPG

[edit]

Marked as no source, but the image was sourced, it was one of the Abu_Ghraib_prisoner_abuse photos. -Nard 13:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The photo had no sources, only multiple copyright templates. Thuresson 22:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All of the photos of that series only have sourcing through {{AbuGhraibPic}}. Unless I'm missing something singling only one of them out is kind of silly. -Nard 14:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Restored. The copyright template names the source of the image. --Boricuæddie 00:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Castillo Terreros.jpg

[edit]

Someone deleted this image: Image:Castillo Terreros.jpg from Commons. I am the author of that photo that I had included in the Spanish wikipedia. I don't know why it was deleted. —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.33.175.222 (talk • contribs)

The image, which was uploaded by User:Wikicarlos, was deleted because it was missing a licensing tag, and we cannot legally use a copyrighted image without a licence. —LX (talk, contribs) 07:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Was this intended to be a request for undeletion or just a question as to why it was deleted? Let me restate that in a more instructive way:
If you are User:Wikicarlos, log in. Then, if you are the author and copyright holder of Image:Castillo Terreros.jpg and you wish to publish it under a free licence so that anyone may use the image for any purpose, please say so. If you do, it will be undeleted so that you can add the required licensing information. Otherwise, this issue will be closed within the next few days. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done then. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

Unacceptable

[edit]

Dear All,

I add an article for an air force personnel (Mussie Lebassi) that I created in 2004. Some body deleted it, which is very disappointing!

BK —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.65.97.5 (talk • contribs) 09:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're complaining at the wrong place. You're talking about en:Mussie Lebassi at the English Wikipedia. The correct place to voice your concerns is at en:WP:DRV. However, that little page was created on April 9, 2006. It was marked as "unreferenced" since July 2006: there were no sources at all backing up the claims made. Someone then proposed it for deletion on January 29, 2007, and since nobody objected to that deletion, the article was deleted on February 5, 2007. That's more than a year ago... Lupo 11:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Wrong place for the complaint. There is nothing at Commons to undelete. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Undeletion request for Kord (band)

[edit]

Undeletion request for Kord (band). The article has reliable sources and it's an notable article. —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.36.80.198 (talk • contribs) 12:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the media repository Wikimedia Commons, so you are asking at the wrong place. Try en:Wikipedia:Deletion review instead. --rimshottalk 12:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Wrong place for the request. There is nothing at Commons to undelete. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Amulet

[edit]

(once a redirect to the category:Amulets) has been deleted per Commons:Project scope by User:ABF which is not applicable though. The scope defines the goals of Commons not defining how to organize the content.

User:ABF finds it unuseful (unsinnig) to perform such a redirect (source). Since I haven't found any regulation about it I find it a bit strange to state such a personal view rule. I have done such redirects not in a small quantity so I would like to have amulet undeleted unless a rule exists or can be cited. --Mattes 04:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think deleting it and citing 'project scope' is appropriate (seems to be an irrelevant reason), there is no reason a gallery called Amulet shouldn't exist. BUT redirecting galleries to categories is a waste of time: if you do not want to bother creating a gallery with a selection of useful images from the category, with captions for each photo, and ordered in some fashion, then the gallery adds no value. Just adding the word 'Amulet' to the category description is probably more useful. Equally deleting the redirected gallery is of very marginal value as well (why waste your time. is there nothing useful left on Commons that actually needs doing ;-) --Tony Wills 11:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is useful for users because they don't have to go use the search. What happens now after typing amulet is that you'll
  • find an empty page and you have to push the "Search for Amulet in Commons" button.
  • find 66 entries which are solely connections of image data to the category:
    • Image:Tartaria amulet.png
    • Image:Chinese amulet trigrammen.png
    • Image:Philippine mythology barnstar protection amulet.jpg
    • Image:Tartaria amulet retouched.PNG
    • Image:Buddhist amulet vending machine Zenkoji.jpg
    • Image:Amulet-pendant Louvre Sb2955.jpg
    • Image:Amulet-pendant Louvre Sb3906.jpg
    • and so on
Here, we're lucky that the first file is correctly attached to Category:Amulets so
  • the user is finally there where he wanted to go.

I mean we should "Keep it simple" or not?! A new user could be frustrated by that mess. It doesn't hurt nobody if a nonexisting gallery is redirecting to a category or vice versa. Mattes 11:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Restored. Redirects to categories make finding images easier. --Boricuæddie 18:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

Undeletion requests for image Antur 1.jpg

[edit]

[3] This photo was made by people who worked in our project about Marine Mammal Research in Far East of Russia, and actually belong to our project. This image is free for non commercial use. So when I put this image under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported. So but its not work... Please help, because I would like to keep this image available for wikipedia.

Commons only accepts images that are free for commercial use as well. --rimshottalk 10:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So why was an image placed under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 deleted? I do not really understand. Wldland 11:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because the source site indicated a different license, I guess. If you are indeed from RFEEMR and have the rights to these pictures, please send a permission to COM:OTRS. --rimshottalk 12:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I am done with this. And next? Should I reupload it with full author identity? Wldland 21:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored Image:Antur_1.jpg. We can now wait for OTRS to confirm the license. --rimshottalk 00:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Wldland 01:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Restored. --Boricuæddie 18:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Images of User:Bkonrad

[edit]

From User talk:Bkonrad, it appears multiple photographs taken personally by Bkonrad were deleted due to unclear source. If possible, these should be undeleted (I don't know how long Commons keeps deleted images) then identified as his work more clearly. Superm401 - Talk 08:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for noticing. I think that the images were restored some time I ago. Someone from Commons left a note on my EN talk page. I never updated my ranting on my talk page here to reflect that. Bkonrad 10:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they've been restored after Commons_talk:Undeletion_requests#Request_undeletion_for_multiple_self-taken_photographs. --rimshottalk 10:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done already, in January. --rimshottalk 10:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Harikalar Diyari

[edit]

Please read Category_talk:Harikalar_Diyari for more info. --Nevit 20:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copying the discussion here Samulili 06:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Harikalar Diyari was nominated for deletion at its entry. This deletion debate was closed at 2007.

Unfortunately the following images was deleted without any notice at my talk page or any discussion .

Image:Harikalar_Diyari_Flintstones_06018_nevit.jpg, Image:Harikalar_Diyari_Flintstones_06019_nevit.jpg, Image:Harikalar_Diyari_Flintstones_06029_nevit.jpg.

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Harikalar_Diyari_Flintstones_06018_nevit.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Harikalar_Diyari_Flintstones_06018_nevit.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Harikalar_Diyari_Flintstones_06029_nevit.jpg

The images in Harikalar Diyari Public amusement park, Sincan, Ankara, are taken with FOP Law. Law No. 5846 of 5 December 1951, on Intellectual and Artistic Works, as last amended on 7 June 1995 by Law No. 4110, section 40, says: The duplication through illustrations, graphics, photographs, etc., promulgation, demonstration by projection at public places and broadcasting through radio and similar media of the works of fine arts stationarily placed on the public roads, streets and avenues are allowed. This authority is exclusive only to the outer shape in the works of architecture. Unless a prohibitory record is clearly placed on them by their owners, the works of fine arts can be demonstrated at public places by their possessors or by others upon their approval. The law has had a few more amendments since then, but I don't see any that changed that section.


Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Harikalar_Diyari_Smurfs_gargamel_06050_nevit.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Harikalar_Diyari_Smurfs_06048_nevit.jpg


--Nevit 11:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amusement parks are private property with right to refuse entry. In most jurisdictions, such places are not considered public places. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But, on the other hand, in some jurisdictions they are. We would need to know the situationin Turkey before making a desicion. Samulili 06:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most amusement parks are privately owned in Turkey. But this spesific one is governmentally owned and can be entered "publicly", "freely", "without any charge", etc. Thus FOP applies here. The debate was openned previously, discussed and closed. It is annoying to discuss it again and again. --Nevit 10:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

✓ All undeleted. Sorry it took so long. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 21:13, 15 February 2008 (GMT)


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

chi-ki children's charity

[edit]

please allow my file to be seen on wikipedia. i think there is a misunderstanding / mistake with licensing and i would like to know how to rectify this problem.

The deleted files of yours were actually not deleted because of licensing issues, but because they were out of the Project scope. They were deleted by Lupo because quote Out of project scope; promotional flyer for a charity. / Fred J (talk) 12:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done 哦，是吗？(O-person) 19:54, 14 February 2008 (GMT)

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

Undeletion request for Nyoman Rudana and Musuem Rudana wiki projects

[edit]

I as the uploader of all these pictures, would like to reupload these pictures for wikipedia projects : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Museum_Rudana, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyoman_Rudana

Some pictures which I don’t remember which ones, were uploaded in Wikipedia, under license GFDL, with permission of Nyoman Rudana as the founder of Museum Rudana but then there was a suggestion to upload them in Wikimedia Common so they can be used in different wiki projects. So I upload some other pics based on the discussion in talk page, but I found out that they need permissions of the creator ( is it the same as the photographer ? ) In my opinion, even the photographer cannot just upload the pictures without permission from Mr. Rudana, especially when he’s in most pictures. So I need advise and what kind of copyrights suitable for these pictures below.

1) . The copyrights of these pictures belong to Museum Rudana, and photographed by Nyoman Rudana, founder of the Museum. Can he reupload the pictures under GFDL self Should he reupload them through thorugh wikipedia or wikimedia common ?

PLAKAT RAM-1.jpg RAM Gate1.jpg RAM_gate.jpg

2) . These pictures below are photographed by the staff of Museum Rudana staff ( I forgot his name ), but he's actually doesn't own the copyright, he just took pictures. The copyright belongs to Mr. Rudana himself. I have discussed this matter with wiki admninistrator and he said that the creator of the oics ( which I assumed was the photographer ) owns the copyright and therefore I should ask his permission.

RUDANA-1.jpg Rudana&Wife.jpg Cornerstone-1.jpg Soeharto signed.jpg Blanco.jpg Upakarti Award.jpg Jiang Zemin at RAM.jpg Rudana&Daughters.jpg KSA2-Syiwa.jpg China Delegates.jpg Rudana& Sons1.jpg Earthquake-Yogya.JPG Book Launching.jpg Praying.jpg RUDANA-2.jpg RAM Cornerstone.jpg Kuwait Exhibition.jpg ITALY AWARD.jpg KSA-1.jpg KSA1-1999.jpg KSA-2.jpg RAM_map.jpg

If I want to reupload the pics, what should I do.

1. Should I ask the photographer's permission. If so, is this template email enough for the permission.

To permissions-commons wikimedia.org I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of WORK [ insert link ]. I agree to publish that work under the free license GFDL / GNU from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Choosing_a_license#Common_free_licenses ]. I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product, and to modify it according to their needs. 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 image may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. Bali, ……………


( Name of the photographer )

2. Can he reupload under GFDL –self , 3. Should he reupload through wikipedia or wikimedia common ?


3). This picture : RAM_logo.jpg are created by a designer, but the copyright belongs to Museum rudana. What kind of copyright is suitable for it ? I once upload it thorugh LOGO copyright, but still, it was deleted.

4). This picture : IPU2007.jpg, was taken during the IPU meeting May 2007 and taking by photographer who sold the picture to Mr. Rudana. So the picture belongs to Mr Rudana, and there's no way I could track the photographer to ask his permission. Please explain how I can upload this picture.

Thank you for your cooperation and please make a list of which picture can be reuploaded and which ones are not and why. There might be any other pictures which I haven't included and I will use your explanation as guidance for upcoming uploading.

Regards,


Mieke Juwono Rudana 05:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a complex question and appears to be unanswered on this board.
You probably should seek larger community input, as a suggestion try the Commons:Village pump, Commons_talk:Licensing or the Commons:Help desk.
Regards, Fred J 22:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done 哦，是吗？(O-person) 03:29, 17 February 2008 (GMT)


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

Image:The sexiest woman in the Roosevelt hotel.jpg

[edit]

Now one cannot take a picture of the Roosevelt Hotel just because someone painted directly on it? From COM:FOP#USA:"Anyone may take photographs of buildings from public places. The photographer holds the exclusive copyright to such an image (the architect or owner of the building has no say whatsoever), and may publish the image in any way." By drawing over the building, over the fire escape and such, it is part of the building. This photograph is allowed under US law. -Nard 00:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The painting is not permanent and therefore the image does not fall under FOP. See also deletion request 哦，是吗？(O-person) 03:36, 09 January 2008 (GMT)
"The works … are subject to protection under this title if … the work is a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work that is incorporated in a building or other structure…" (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#104) —LX (talk, contribs) 20:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

Image:Menuinicio.jpg Rights

[edit]

Hi, I recently upload a screenshot Menuinicio.jpg, which was deleted by a supposed “fair use http://systemarpi.googlepages.com”.

I have the author rights for use the image, what can I do? —the preceding unsigned comment was added by Nxgtrturbo (talk • contribs) 21:51, 6 February 2008

 Support. Seems to be a {{Free screenshot}} of {{GPL}} software. See http://systemarpi.googlepages.com/source_code.html. (I will leave the deleting admin and others some time to comment, though.) —LX (talk, contribs) 23:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Undeleted and licensing changed from {{self|GFDL|FAL}} to {{free screenshot|template=GPLv3}} (because there is no creativity in making a screenshot, so you cannot claim copyright protection for your work of making the screenshot; see Commons:Screenshots). —LX (talk, contribs) 09:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

Karl and Bertha Benz

[edit]

was deleted -- taking away access to all commons images for them and leaving the links on the pages that uased the images —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.196.169.194 (talk • contribs) 17:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This gallery was deleted because it was structured confusingly and seemingly wasn't intended to be a proper gallery. There are plenty of images of Carl Benz (and at least one of Bertha Benz) in Category:Carl Benz. If you think any images have been wrongfully deleted, please state their specific names. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done 哦，是吗？(O-person) 03:26, 17 February 2008 (GMT)

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

undelete Image:Circumcised penis.JPG

[edit]

I would like my file undeleted because I believe that it is showing something which rarely comes up in your website. It is not senseless in this case and it is not teen porn because it is my penis and I am 18 years of age! I would be very grateful if you could reply back to me, thanks. —the preceding unsigned comment was added by Thehibabe (talk • contribs) 21:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commons now has sufficient low-quality images of male genitalia. They do indeed come up (no pun intended) quite often; see Category:Penis. Thanks anyway. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. It's been a week since the last comment now, so I guess if anyone had any objections, they would have been known by now. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Fotografía oficial del gabinete de Michelle Bachelet, 18-09-2007.jpg

[edit]

The image was deleted in this request because it was without licence. The image was with the {{Copyrighted free use}} tag but when was nominated for deletion, the user removed the licence tag. The licence was valid as you can see in this deletion request made by the same user where the image from the same source was finally kept. I hope you can restore the image because it's really important and it was deleted because of a mistake --B1mbo 16:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless derivative works and commercial use is explicitly allowed, we can't have the media here. 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 02:16, 15 December 2007 (GMT)
The website of the Chilean Government (the source of the image) says, "Se autoriza su reproducción y uso citando fuente", which means "Use and reproduction authorized if the source is cited". I'll e-mail them and see if this includes derivative works and commercial use. --Boricuæddie 13:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Removing the old licensing tag before making a deletion request for "no license" and then not telling people should be considered vandalism. The previous precedent has been to allow these images, which the nominator should have known as he previously nominated one. -Nard 16:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. No OTRS. --MichaelMaggs 22:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:SFArmory ext.jpg and Image:SFArmory int.jpg

[edit]

I am requesting undeletion of the images Image:SFArmory ext.jpg and Image:SFArmory int.jpg. These images are from the website http://www.sfarmory.com owned by Kink.com, however, they were used with the specific permission of Peter Acworth, owner of Kink.com. If Wikimedia commons has some specific way of formalizing copyright release of images owned by a party other than the uploader, please let me know. Peter G Werner 23:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You need to forward the permission to OTRS. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 23:39, 26 December 2007 (GMT)

 Not done. No OTRS. --MichaelMaggs 22:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

Image:Laranjada.jpg

[edit]

can this be restored please? —the preceding unsigned comment was added by Rockysantos (talk • contribs) 16:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have the permission yet? __ ABF __ ϑ 19:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. No OTRS. --MichaelMaggs 22:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

I am sending this message to request undeletion of my page

[edit]

I will admit that the copy right section was a bit confusing, but any images I posted were the sole property of me. It is all my work so I really don't feel that I should need premission from myself to display my own work. —the preceding unsigned comment was added by Rebelxd (talk • contribs) 00:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That may be true, but your page and images we're deleted because they were out of our project scope, specifically all your contributions were self-promoting and had no use to the Wikimedian community. This isn't MySpace. →Rocket°°° 20:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. --MichaelMaggs 22:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please undelete Image:Boolos.gif

[edit]

The permission I sought mentioned Wikipedia only, but the entire body of the text also referred to free use under the GNU license.

Thanks,

Roberterubin 19:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)rerubin[reply]

You need to obtain an explicit permission statement as shown on Commons:Email templates and archive it according to the instructions at Commons:OTRS. The existing statements that you have shown are not sufficient to show that the copyright holder approved publication under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License.
Relevant links for admins and others: Image:Boolos.gif, Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Boolos.gif, Special:Undelete/Image:Boolos.gif, User talk:LX#Image:Boolos.gif and Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Deletion of boolos.gif, in spite of all Wikimedia requirements having been met.. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Stale. No OTRS for over two months. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 02:06, 19 February 2008 (GMT)


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

Image:Tokaido15 Kanbara.jpg

[edit]

The image Image:Tokaido15 Kanbara.jpg was deleted because it is claimed to be a duplicate of Image:Hiroshige nuit de neige à Kambara.JPG. The pictures are the same, but Tokaido15 Kanbara.jpg is a better version because it is labeled as a series with all the other pictures in the set and is easier to understand. Douggers 02:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please link to things for the convenience of other readers, don't just give image names, those require quite a bit more work to follow and review. I have taken the liberty of changing the referenced images in your remarks to links (without changing anything else). I am not sure I follow your reasoning. What do you mean by "labeled as a series" and "easier to understand" I looked at the last deleted revision and I didn't see anything in the information that explained anything. You can always modify the information on the other image to add linking and explanatory information if you want. ++Lar: t/c 00:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There appears to be a set of images see Category:Tōkaidō gojusan tsugi, labeled Tokaidonn+_xxxx.jpg, this was the 15th of the set. Didn't I read somewhere (VP?) that image redirection now works, wouldn't this be a suitable use - redirect Image:Tokaido15 Kanbara.jpg to point to Image:Hiroshige nuit de neige à Kambara.JPG ? --Tony Wills 01:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done; anybody may create a redirect at their wish. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 02:10, 19 February 2008 (GMT)

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

Image:Bob_Marley_Live-Painting_by_Steve_Brogdon1992.jpg

[edit]

Deleted at the deletion request due to being "derivative" of a copyrighted photo. Derivative of which one? this one, copyrighted under the GFDL? I cannot find any photos of him anything more than passingly similar to this painting, which is also found on en.wiki[4]. I did find [5] and [6] but these do not bear any more resemblance to this painting besides his hair waving in the air. -Nard 23:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know. But even if it weren't a derivative of some photo: is there any evidence that the original uploader at en-WP, User Phr0gor, is Steve Brogdon? Where's the OTRS release? Lupo 15:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Still no OTRS three weeks after last posting. --MichaelMaggs 16:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please undelete

[edit]

I'm trying to figure my way through posting on wikipedia - I will make necessary changes in order to repost my article. —the preceding unsigned comment was added by Starving students movers (talk • contribs)

Undelete what? You have no deleted edits. Also, this is not Wikipedia, generally we don't have articles. —JeremyA 23:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Nothing to undelete. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Four images

[edit]

I've uploaded 4 images i.e Image:LabourIndia Logo.jpg (facing deletion), Image:SGK AbdulKalam.jpg, Image:Santhosh George Kulangara.jpg and Image:SGK zerogravity.jpg . I would like to contest the deletion and I spoke to the author/owner of the images. They said they are ready to provide copyright (permission) to use in en.wikipedia. If needed, they are ready to write permission letter from the company official e-mail id. What shall I do now? --avinj 04:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

copyright permission already sent to the following id: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org from the webmaster of the company i.e www.labourindia.com & www.santhoshgeorge.com . please look at the email & do the necessary work accordingly. Thanks a lot. --avinj 06:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. Permisson at OTRS 2008021910004657, not restricted to Wikipedia. --MichaelMaggs 07:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

ghostmob

[edit]

why did you delete this

This is Wikimedia Commons. Commons is a repository for media file: images, sound files and so on. It is not a place for articles. Articles may be created at Wikipedia. --rimshottalk 22:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

... 哦，是吗？(O-person) 03:16, 25 February 2008 (GMT)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2008-02&oldid=113104112"