Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2008-10

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

Image:Xbox-live-logo.png

I believe Xbox-live-logo.png needs possibly more discussion. Please see this. Thanks, --Kanonkas_(talk) 05:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gone to DR here. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deletion of "Jens_Fink-Jensen.jpg"

Somebody has deleted the image "Jens_Fink-Jensen.jpg" which means that is has disappeared from pages like http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jens_Fink-Jensen and http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jens_Fink-Jensen.

It is clearly noted on the official Jens Fink-Jensen website that the picture is for free use at Wikipedia and other websites.

Can someone help to restore the picture on the pages from where they disappeared? Thank you very much in advance! :-)

A permission for wikipedia and related websites is not enough. For the image to stay here, we need permission of use for any purpose, including derivative works and commercial use. See Licensing for appropriate licenses. Best regards, --rimshot^talk 18:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done, released into the public domain (ticket# 2008091110013891). →Christian .И 19:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

sps new logo.jpg deletion

that pic was the logo of our group..and it should not have been deleted because it is entirely my own work..i am begging you to pls reconsider it..—Preceding unsigned comment added by Theodore8087 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please confirm that you are in position to grant such a licence by following the OTRS procedure. --O (谈 • висчвын) 22:43, 12 September 2008 (GMT)

Not yet confirmed. →Christian .И 20:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bayeux-crypte1.JPG unfair vote

This was created to show the vote on the picture Image:Bayeux-crypte1.JPG, which is not here anymore, for the users that are voting in the second delist nomination. Mr. Mario (talk) 22:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Bayeux-crypte1.JPG unfair vote

Doesn't sound like it is a valid reason for a page in article space. Could it be temporarily undeleted, with the content being moved to a user subpage, or a Commons: namespace subpage, or something like that? Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to undelete. Of course the history of Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/Image:Bayeux-crypte1.JPG still has the previous (wrongly closed) delist nomination. Lupo 23:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not done deletion clearly correct, not needed as this in the gallery-namespace. abf /talk to me/ 08:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Preteen_penis_3.jpg

I think this photo is necessary because many years ago I took it and it would fit in the puberty categories and to add a new scope to other areas of importance.

With this photo it would help many pages in this server.

It is not everyday someoneone uploads one like this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Twalsh000 (talk • contribs)

Oppose There is no evidence of consent, and it's dangerously close to kiddie porn. -Nard the Bard 01:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose more than enough penis already on commons. Sterkebaktalk 03:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the two above. abf /talk to me/ 08:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. →Christian .И 10:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

user warrington

my user page has been delated. Why?

You don't have a deleted user page here or any deleted contributions). Was this page on Commons or elsewhere? Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not done nothing to undelete. abf /talk to me/ 17:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:2009 Ford Flex (One Quarter Perspective).jpg

Passed Flickr review as CC-BY, but had a {{Flickr-change-of-license}}. Sources say Ford has put press photos under these licenses (even the Creative Commons website, who also acknowledges the whole "sure you changed the license but that doesn't mean that the old one is still valid"). ViperSnake151 (talk) 11:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved. ViperSnake151 (talk) 11:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

misc. request

can please put my things back on if you dnt believe i exist check out my youtube shenryu10 thx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruce Johnston (talk • contribs) 19:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not done, nothing to undelete. Please try again on Wikipedia. →Christian .И 19:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

German signatures

This is an undeletion request as follow-up to this deletion request. I will focus on those signatures which are to be handled in respect to German law:

Image:Boell Sign.jpg (supposedly a signature of Heinrich Böll)
Image:Grass Signature.jpg (supposedly a signature of Günter Grass)
Image:Hesse Signature.jpg (supposedly a signature of Hermann Hesse)
Image:Thomas Mann's Signature.jpg (supposedly a signature of Thomas Mann)

I have not seen the images, I just got aware of these deletions through a subsequent deletion request which asks for more signature images to be deleted, including signatures of Germans. Please let me know if I am wrong with any of the above attributions.

I want to point out that simple signatures without calligraphic art are not eligible for copyright according to German law, i.e. all of these signatures can be kept at Commons and should be tagged {{PD-ineligible}}. The German copyright law differs significantly from common law as it requires a comparatively high threshold of originality, called Schöpfungshöhe in German. The relevant law is the Urheberrechtsgesetz, short UrhG. Interesting in this context are the first two paragraphs. According to § 1 UrhG, only works out of the fields of literature, science, and art are eligible for copyright. § 2 (2) UrhG makes clear that there is a certain threshold of originality that must be met. In German: Werke im Sinne dieses Gesetzes sind nur persönliche geistige Schöpfungen which can be roughly translated to Works are according to this law just personal intellectual creations. In German, we have the term Schöpfungshöhe (threshold of originality) which describes the minimal requirements that must be met that a work becomes a copyrightable intellectual creation. In this context, signatures are comparable to simple graphics that just fulfil some practical purpose which are likewise not eligible for copyright as documented by following cases:

OLG Köln, GRUR 1986, 889 ruled that this image is ineligible for copyright including its animation
BVerfG GRUR 2005, 410 ruled that this image is ineligible for copyright because it is a simple graphic that serves a practical purpose

In general, simple type faces and signatures for practical purposes are not eligible for copyright. To cite from Haimo Schack: Urheber- und Urhebervertragsrecht, p. 118:

Dagegen wird ein Urheberschutz von Schriftzeichen von der Rechtssprechung in aller Regel verneint. Auch das einprägsame Signet der "ARD-1" erfüllte nicht die Anforderungen an eine persönliche geistige Schöpfung. Seit dem 1.6.2004 werden Schriftzeichen nicht mehr über das Schriftzeichengesetz, sondern unmittelbar als Geschmacksmuster geschützt (vgl § 61 GeschmMG).

My rough translation:

In contrast, a copyright protection for type faces is declined by the prevailing case law. Even the catchy logo "ARD-1" did not fulfil the requirements of a personal intellectual creation. Since 1 June 2004 type faces are no longer protected by the Schriftzeichengesetz (law for type faces) but as design patents (see § 61 GeschmMG).

In consequence, these signatures are not only ineligible for copyright according to US law but also according to German law and for this reason I ask these images to be undeleted. Thanks, AFBorchert (talk) 15:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

undelete. I think we have clarified German law on this issue now. This should be copied somewhere for further reference, and the german signatures should be restored. --Dschwen (talk) 15:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

support - signatures are ineligible in the US and the country of origin (Germany), thus free according to our guidelines --h-stt !? 17:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done Will shortly propose a new {{PD-signature}} for these and similar images. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See draft at Commons:When to use the PD-signature tag --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

two images relating to otrs ticket 2007031810003991

See User talk:GeorgHH/Archiv 7#deleted image with an otrs ticket for history.

Image:1976 Congressman Leo Ryan letter to Ida Camburn.jpg is a letter on official letterhead from Congressman w:Leo Ryan, and so is, in my opinion, covered by {{PD-USGov}}.

Image:Congressman Leo Ryan memorial by Ida Camburn.gif is a snippet of text by Ida Camburn, and has an OTRS ticket from an AOL address, to which the OTRS agent replied requested an email be sent from a more verifiable email address, however I think that it is quite plain to see that the AOL address is the usual address of Ida Camburn. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can't speak to the second image, lacking administrator status to view it in context, but certainly agree that any image a federal Congressman sends on official letterhead should be seen as an official communication in commission of his duties. Sherurcij (talk) 05:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. Per additional OTRS information. Cirt (talk) 22:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

ICU seal.svg

I deleted this image as probable copyvio and got an earful from the user. He claims that he took a picture of the "Seal of the Islamic Courts Union", then eventually did a clean sketch based on it. I didn't get anywhere in a conversation initially (see my talk page) but the user has since calmed down and posted a cleared explanation. Quoted below. The short version is, this is over my head and I think this should be a proper Undelete request. So here here we are. --ShakataGaNai ^Talk 21:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright well it's the next day, and I feel a bit less angry (no longer "blind rage" of last night). I still can't find a backup copy of the ICU seal, so you may have obliterated that work from the universe, but I'm feeling more philosophical about that, and I will address your questions. There are two sets of copyright laws, there is the copyright law of the nation where the content is created, and there is the copyright law of the nation where that content is used or displayed. The ICU seal was created in Somalia, where no copyright or trademark legislation exists nor legislation on national symbols, I created a copy of the seal from a photograph of that seal (also taken in Somalia), in Canada, but it is used in the United States on Wikimedia Commons servers (or wherever they are based). The IFOJ article considers the use of national symbols in articles written in the west in countries subject to the Berne Convention, the TRIPS agreement, and member states of the World Trade Organization. The IFOJ points out that the use of national emblems and symbols is not subject to copyright, but are subject to limitations and restrictions of use depending on the national policy relating to their national symbols of the nations in question. Somalia does not have any legislation or law, as is the case in most western countries, relating to the correct use of the nation's symbols. Thus, there are no inherent nor defined copyrights on Somali political symbols (of which the UIC seal was from 2006 to 2007) nor are there specified limitations on the use of said symbols as of June 2008. It can be said that, as the symbols are of national authorities and the potential for abuse of national symbols is important, it could be argued that the ICU seal has inherent restriction and limitations of use, but nowhere was the ICU seal being used to impersonate the ICU, or other such mischief. --Ingoman 19:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC) ----- [1]

Stale --O (谈 • висчвын) 15:06, 09 October 2008 (GMT)

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

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Viktor_Tilgner&action=history

Please undelete all that red stuff and put it again in Viktor Tilgner. The brown photographs are by Category:Josef Löwy (1835-1902), according to de:Viktor_Tilgner#Werke. Thanks Mutter Erde (talk) 19:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. Helped myself (one file now without an ö) Mutter Erde (talk) 10:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved somehow --O (谈 • висчвын) 15:06, 09 October 2008 (GMT)

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

Undelete request / needs persons with excellent comprehension of French

The request can be found on the discussion page of the deleted image [This is the link to the request] --Duvillage (talk) 01:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! This is a complaint against Giggy! He erased all my research and documentation on why I requested undelition of this picture. I had links to the French government sources and documents I cited. And to make it easy to understand I quoted the most important parts. And now all my research work is lost. I wrote it all on the discussion page of the undeleted picture, and maybe that was a mistake He is the one who erased the picture in the first place. I understand you are all volunteers, but so am I.

--Duvillage (talk) 13:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour,

J'ai consulté la page en question et vu la photo (rassure-toi, ton travail n'est pas perdu).

La photo en question semble être un portrait. Le sujet y est de trois quart face sous une lumière qui modèle son visage. Cela ne semble pas être une photo d'identité. Nous devons donc supposer que cette photo a donné lieu à des droits d'auteurs. Tant que l'auteur n'est pas identifié et qu'il n'est pas prouvé que l'image est dans le domaine public, nous devons supposer que sa présence est une violation potentielle des droits d'auteur. En conséquence, Giggy a bien fait.

Bonne continuation. Rama (talk) 14:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Donc, si je vous comprends bien, vous avez pu consulter ma page de discussion?

Et donc, pour qu'une photographie d'une personne puisse être considérée comme étant tout simplement une photo d'identité, il faut absolument que cette photographie soit prise de face, sans le moindre angle? --Duvillage (talk) 15:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oui, les admins peuvent lire des pages effacées. J'ai pu lire les prémisses votre argumentation, qui sont solides. Le point problématique est l'assimilation de la photo en question à une photo d'identité, ce qui nous amène au second point.

Oui, pour Commons, une photo d'identité devrait très clairement en être une pour être acceptée (idéalement on aurait une photo de toute la carte d'identité pour prouver la chose). En l'occurrence, la photo pourrait très bien être un détail d'une photo artistique, ou une version basse résolution d'un portrait. L'éclairage me parait très sophistiqué pour une simple photo d'identité. Rama (talk) 15:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bon, si cette la photo (que je ne trouvais pas du tout "créative") est en fait une photo artistique comment je fais alors pour savoir qui l'a prise, si elle a été publiée, si oui, quand? Est-ce la date de la publication qui est importante, ou est-ce la date du décès du photographe? Le sujet a voyagé dans les Amériques et en Europe - il avait donc un passeport avec photo! - Cette photo-ci pourrait avoir été prise aux Etats-Unis ou au Canada ou dans un autre pays européen. Dans ce cas quelles lois s'appliqueraient. Les lois du pays où la photo a été prise et/ou publiée? --Duvillage (talk) 16:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question préliminaire: vous avez l'air de croire que c'est bien une photo d'identité, est-ce que vous avez une source pour ça ? Si c'est le cas, l'image est restaurée, on ajoute une référence et la question est réglée.

Dans un cas de ce genre, il faut identifier le photographe. C'est sa date de mort qui sert de point de départ. On compte un certain nombre d'années en fonction du pays où la photo a été prise (souvent 70 ans, en particulier pour USA, Canada et Europe) ; la photo tombe dans le domaine public après ce délai.

Pour des oeuvres de plus de 170 ans, on peut « tricher » et uploader même si l'auteur est inconnu, parce qu'on peut raisonnablement considérer que tout auteur a eu le temps de mourir en 100 ans après la publication de l'oeuvre. Pour les oeuvres plus récente, c'est malheureusement impossible. Rama (talk) 16:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Il va falloir que je recommence à la case zéro. Je n'ai hélas pas conservé les détails du site où j'ai trouvé cette photo. Lorsque j'ai enregistré la photo, j'ai seulement noté le nom de la personne, ainsi que l'époque où elle a été prise. --Duvillage (talk) 19:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stale --O (谈 • висчвын) 15:05, 09 October 2008 (GMT)

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

Image:Monthly household income in deciles 2005.jpg

This is ridiculous, you're deleting a so-called "copyvio" of stock market data. We all know that under most copyright law, statistics and facts CANNOT be copyrighted because they are not original enough. A presentation of it "could" be copyrightable, but a graph *could* be {{PD-ineligible}}. ViperSnake151 (talk) 13:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was a deletion request. --O (谈 • висчвын) 20:56, 01 September 2008 (GMT)

I'd also say this file is below the threshold of originality. Some more opinions regarding that matter would be useful. →Christian .И 20:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We do not host raw text here. This is a table of raw data that contains nothing educational over and above the data presented, and is in my view out of scope under COM:PS#Excluded educational content. It should be reformatted as wikitext and uploaded to a relevant Wikipedia or other page where the content is to be used. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not done --O (谈 • висчвын) 15:07, 09 October 2008 (GMT)

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

Image:Cafe_Lipstick.jpg

In continuation of Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Cafe Lipstick.jpg and the prompt I got from Slomox on my talk page.

Hello, I and User:5ko had a discussion with Mr Gruev regarding this NC copyright statement and its incompatibility with the clauses of GFDL. He declared that he has been aware of the condition of GFDL ever since he gave the permission (November 2004) and he reassured us that this permission still holds. As I later understood from en:Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission (although it is written in the section devoted to text, yet it deals with the same license): [...] the author does not give up any of his or her rights to use the text: he or she is still free to publish the text elsewhere or to license the same text to other parties under any other license. I know for sure that same is valid for the Creative Commons licenses and presumably other free licenses too. It is not illegal that an author licenses different copies of the same material under different licenses, and in this case we have an explicit permission given twice in conscious mind and good faith.

Mr Gruev left his email (ngruev SNAIL yahoo PERIOD com) on Template_talk:NGruev, and those of you who have doubts of his permission or the dialogue we had in Bulgarian, are free to contact him and again clarify the case for themselves, or explain the OTRS procedure and ask him to send a permission there, as well. I myself am NOT going to handle the case and disturb Mr Gruev once again. I am much more concerned about carefully describing the uploads sourced from his website, as some of the uploaders didn't provide links to the precise webpages and some of the descriptions are very careless. This task stays in my to do list and whenever I see such an image by chance, I fix it, but I still have a lot of other work and no helpers for a complete systematic cleanup of all images by Mr Gruev uploaded here. Yet, I may try to finish this task by the end of the year, unless the rest of the images get also deleted by the time... Regards, →Spiritia 20:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Cafe Lipstick.jpg - I can't draw a clear conclusion from the discussion as to whether Gruev agrees to commercial use of his pictures or not. He seemed to favor non-commercial use on Wikipedia only, but Google Translation is not good enough to learn whether he finally agreed to commercial use in the Bulgarian portions of the discussion or not. - User:Slomox - Due to this comment I don't really feel comfortable restoring the image myself - but if another administrator wants to undo my action I don't have any problem with that. It seems from the above description and from the deletion discussion page that the best way to go to really be sure as far as verification would be Commons:OTRS before doing anything else, IMO. Cirt (talk) 20:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I was the wikipedian who got the first GFDL permission from Mr Gruev in 2004, and I also participated in the discussion which spanned on Template_talk:NGruev and on bg.wiki last year. Mr Gruev wrote several times, here and on bg.wiki, that what he had agreed upon (GFDL, proper attribution/link) still stood. If this is one of his pictures, it could be safely restored. --5ko (talk) 09:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not done until an OTRS permission is sent --O (谈 • висчвын) 15:09, 09 October 2008 (GMT)

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

Image:Adaptive Audio Screen Shot.gif

I have looked at the other categories and found them less suitable for the following image:

Adaptive Audio Screen Shot.gif

I think Wikipedia Commons is the most suitable place for an image like this. It was deleted previously for copyright concerns. I am the copyright owner and donated this image by selecting the recommended license during the commons upload stage.

D3innovation (talk) 19:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a member of this committee, I personally designed this logo and would like it in the public domain.

Thanks

Please look at COM:OTRS to see how to confirm allowing this into teh public domain via Commons. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not done --O (谈 • висчвын) 15:12, 09 October 2008 (GMT)

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

Image: iROCK109Logo.jpg

Please undelete the file iROCK109Logo.jpg. I am the creator of the logo, and while I do wish to protect the logo, I am perfectly fine with allowing the Wikipedia community to have unequivocal access to this file.

Thank you,

DCLive

Any media held here has to be freely licensed for anyone to use anywhere. It cannot be restricted in the way you suggest I'm afraid. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not done --O (谈 • висчвын) 15:13, 09 October 2008 (GMT)

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

Request for Undeletion

Hi, Someone requested to delete this image http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Yuyuan.jpg. But Boman, the author of this photo, has already granted me the permission and I have already sent all the permission emails to OTRS. Here is the original URL of the image: http://fotop.net/boman/gymnastics/HYT_4923.

Could someone tell me what is happening? Thank you. Tinbin (talk) 06:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image was kept, see Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Yuyuan.jpg. Giggy (talk) 07:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:WomenAircraftWorkers.jpg

Image:WomenAircraftWorkers.jpg was recently deleted, for a justifiable reason (the source was an old encyclopedia, which didn't list an author). It felt like it was probably a USGov WWII photograph though, so I searched a bit. I found a copy on this page (image #20), which says it is by Alfred T. Palmer, a photographer with the U.S. Office of War Information. Indeed, I found a nearly identical (but not quite the same) image, credited as such, on the Library of Congress here. There are several other photos from the same shoot there as well. So, this photo should be restored and marked {{PD-USGov-OWI}}. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/Image:WomenAircraftWorkers.jpg. I've contacted the deleting admin. Giggy (talk) 07:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Great research. File restored and new tag added. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deletion

My own userpage has been deleted, Onlineoracle. I had a subpage I had been working on and it's gone! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onlineoracle (talk • contribs) 18:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not done, you're just on the wrong project. It's still available here. Regards, →Christian .И 19:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request

please do not delete my account and details

Ok. Patrícia ^msg 16:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Monika_Hauser.jpg

Please restore Image:Monika_Hauser.jpg - it was deleted without explanation and without discussion (at least I could not find any, may be any more) The image is being used in two places at least, and it is more than likely that the deletor did not understand the licensing situation. He write "Copyright violation" in the delete log. I remember having seen the image when it was inserted in the Wikipedia of the Ripuarian languages and I am pretty certain that there was no copyright or licensing problem (at that time, at least) Please inform me on my talk page when the image has been restored. I shall check it, then. Thank you. --Purodha Blissenbach (talk) 18:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reinstated the image, and created a deletion request for it. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Undeletion of my user page request

Hi, This is only the second time I have logged into Wiki. my page seems to have been deleted. Can I have my page undeleted please? Monique Antoinette (talk) 15:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion log is case sensitive, what was the exact title? Unless you have the correct title, it would be very difficult to find it there.--Paloma Walker (talk) 15:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page is at the English Wikipedia. This here is Wikimedia Commons, a different project on which you do have an (automatically created) account, but you never created a user page here. Lupo 15:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explaining that Lupo. I'm such a newbie. Monique Antoinette (talk) 15:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Someone

Hi am here in request to the deletion of Musegendary, i was just wondering why my article was deleted since my article was real. I will appreciate it if you take time to attend to this problem. Thank you

Please ask at the English Wikipedia. Here is Wikimedia Commons, a completely different project on which you didn't create any articles. Lupo 14:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Butyrometer.jpg

Please undelete the image, it was freely licensed by the uploader on the german wikipedia. what otrs got to do with it?--Alnokta (talk) 22:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Input?--Alnokta (talk) 02:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The user who tagged this image as unclear permission said that the de.wikipedia uploader is not the creator. In order to have clear permission, it must be forwarded to OTRS. --O (谈 • висчвын) 15:16, 09 October 2008 (GMT)

Not done, for now. →Christian .И 07:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

拝啓。絵としてアップロードしたのには、訳があります。これとほぼ同様の情報を、文章でアップロードしたら、編集者の改ざんにあい、最終的に悪い結果になりました。文章をアップする前に、このファイルをアップしたので、編集した編集者が削除依頼を出したのだと思います。PDFは、この様な事にもあわないし、他の閲覧者からのいたずらにもあいません。日本語として、内容が意味不明なら別として、偽りの無い内容が書いてあります。それを削除するのはおかしいと思います。ここに、削除回避、DATAの復活を要求します。--Hosoyann (talk) 15:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. Because outside project scope.(

目的外利用であるため、却下とします。

) LERK (Talk / Contributions / Mail) 11:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Undelete

Hello, my friend.

Kindly undelete the vizeds.jpg image from my newsdesigner account You are mistaken, I am the creator and owner of this image copyright. In fact I own the Web site, the design, the name and the screenshot of all of the above that I just posted here. I tagged it CC Attribution. Nuff said.

Thanks.

Vizeds.jpg

OH, and I sent a release form to your copyright release e-mail address - check it and restore at once, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newsdesigner (talk • contribs) 09:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, to what email address did you send the confirmation ? →Christian .И 10:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. →Christian .И 06:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

SNS Heinlein.jpg

File "SNS Heinlein.jpg" has been deleted, although it was a book cover, explicitly placed on wiki commons by one the book's author (E. Picholle), with full consent by the editor and owner of the rights (Les Moutons électriques, publisher). Even if open to discussion (although none has been proposed), the additionnal general comment that such use was generally considered "fair use", and fully legal under French Law, has little to do with the question of its legitimacy on wiki commons. I thus request the undeletion of the file.

Hello,

In my opinion permission should go to Commons:OTRS. If the publisher send permission to otrs and it's all oké the image should be undeleted. It's also important that the permission say's under what licence it must stand. And that the understand that everybody may use or edit the cover not only for personal but also for commercional use. Cheers, Sterkebaktalk 14:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not done, per above. →Christian .И 06:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request to undelete Image:Cal Hep B Free Logo.png

I am the original creator of the Cal Hep B Free logo. It is a derivative of the San Francisco Hep B Free logo which I have had permission to replicate specifically from the San Francisco Hep B Free Steering Group. The usage of "Cal" and "UC Berkeley" in the logo has been approved by the University of California, Berkeley's Office of Marketing and Buiness Outreach (OMBO). This is not a copyright violation of any sort. We have been publicly using this logo since the beginning of 2008.

Thank you for your understanding.

Thanks, please forward this permission to COM:OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). Regards, →Christian .И 06:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. →Christian .И 06:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Undeletion of file

Can you please undelete my Work as i am not a vandal and i was putting in details about ODL Securities. However it took me so long as i needed to findout who held the copy right and now that i have clarified this matter can u please undelete it Thanx

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ODL Securities (talk • contribs) diff (UTC)

Your user page (which I deleted) is outside our scope & promotional. The logo that you have uploaded will be deleted as a copyright violation I'd afraid. In order to host such material here we would need verification of the licensing via OTRS from the copyright holder. Also it too would need to be within our scope. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree with Herby here, please if You want to build a free website to promote Your company go to Geocities, Myspace etc. thanks, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 18:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. →Christian .И 06:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:KKK_Gun.JPG

According to the deletion request Commons:Deletion requests/Image:KKK Gun.JPG: The image is not sourced to a gov website, it is used there. The image is source to Photo//Paul M. Walsh, the Flickr user escapedtowisconsin IS Paul M. Walsh and he is also the Commons User:escapedtowisconsin (he confirmed this per Flickrmail to me). So please undelete this image. The author is free to licence the image like he want, it was obvious that he is the Flickr User and that the Flickr User is the correct author of his uploaded images, so his only mistake was to source the images with Flickr. All images of this User are correctly licenced by the author himself (maybe there are other problems with third party rights of AP, but i dont know the terms and conditions of such contracts and it is not our concern.) --Martin H. (talk) 20:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Flickr user does appear to be the Paul M. Walsh named in all the photos there. He is a freelance photographer, which would explain the AP sourcing. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK solved, the user changed the licence at Flickr and reuploaded the image, he also created a userpage. So this request does not need any further discussion. --Martin H. (talk) 00:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done, per above. →Christian .И 06:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Undeletion request

Please let us know why SYED BARIQUE MAHMOOD entry was deleted? We are requesting to undeletion of this entry because it is a true information of a globally recognize young person. It will be an unfair decision and we will further investigate on much of your entries to see its trustworthiness.

Cassiopia A!

You are at Wikimedia Commons. You need to ask that at Wikipedia.--Paloma Walker (talk) 23:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not done, per above. →Christian .И 06:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

GROUP PHOTO MC LALAMUSA

This photo is group photo of elected members muncipal committe laamusa 1990.

San Francisco Gay and Lesbian Film Festival

Nothing to restore, try on Wikipedia. →Christian .И 06:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Gray1120.png

I request that the file Image:Gray1120.png is undeleted. AFAIK, this has been an image from Gray's anatomy, which is in public domain. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A related undeletion may be needed in all the deletions by User:Mardetanha, made on 7.10.2008, e.g. those[2], at that time placed in Category:Unknown as of 28 September 2008. Note however that I am new at Commons, so I may be easily in error. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gray1120.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) has now been undeleted by Mardetanha, but some admin should check his other deletions; see also User talk:Mardetanha#Deleting Image:Gray1120.png. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't Mardetanha's fault, there was no source at the image & that's probably why it got deleted. --Kanonkas_(talk) 08:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The file was labeled {{Gray's Anatomy plate|The relations of the viscera and large vessels of the abdomen. (Seen from behind, the last thoracic vertebra being well raised.)}}. This produces a large and very obvious banner, but even after he restored it thas admin wrote:"I have restored the image but as you see the image the image has no description." /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes & that's an easy mistake. Therefore people should make a description, at least say the source is in the license, like this one. --Kanonkas_(talk) 09:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now another incompetent adminstrator SterkeBak (talk · contribs) deleted again File:Gray1120.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log). Are you all mad? The info (source, author, licence) is all there. This is a madhouse. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see source info.. I didn't see any info. I only had seen you reverted the nsd template. I reverted you and than deleted it. Sterkebaktalk 21:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you blind? Did not you notice this banner:

{{Gray's Anatomy plate|The relations of the viscera and large vessels of the abdomen. (Seen from behind, the last thoracic vertebra being well raised.)}}

It contains source, license and description. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guess we can consider this Done, please calm down. Regards, →Christian .И 06:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

PD-RU-exempt images from Kremlin.ru

This request in relation to: Image:Medvedev meets with Kokoity and Bagapsh.jpg, Image:Dmitry Medvedev.JPG, and Image:Dmitry Medvedev, 29 April 2008.jpg.

The old Kremlin template was deleted, due to the Kremlin website not explicitly allowing commercial, non-derivative, etc, and User:Kimse used that as a reference in this deletion. Better to be safe than sorry.

I uploaded the above photos from the Kremlin website, using Template:PD-RU-exempt, and these were deleted from Commons using the above deletion discussion as a reference. Some of the photos I uploaded were from here (use these photos as a guide for this discussion)

Points raised in the above referenced deletion discussion included:

The website usage allowance doesn't allow for derivative, etc
Photos on the site are credit to Joe Smith.

These photos are different, in that they are not authored by and/or credited to individuals, but are clearly credited to Photo: the Presidential Press and Information Office.

As you can see from Template:PD-RU-exempt, official documents of state government agencies are not subject to copyright; the Presidential Executive Office (under the Directorate of the President I believe) being a State Government agency. As these photos are in effect official documents of that agency, they are not subject to copyright, and hence may be used on Commons without restriction, regardless of how vague the right to use on the site is.

It is the same licence (PD-RU-exempt), which allows for the Ukaz (President Decree) on South Ossetian and Abkhazian independence to be uploaded to Commons, and Medvedev's speech to be uploaded to Wikisource. --russavia (talk) 02:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have tried to get that clarified with the Kremlin Authorities and that proved to bear no fruit. Frankly, I think it will be perfectly fine to keep the images of the decrees (if not, we can find copies of the text and put it on Wikisource). I know we have images of Russian symbols that came from the Kremlin, such as flags, hymns, arms and also medals. I think more input is needed before anything is decided. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 04:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The decrees are no problem at all, as they are an official document; what is in question here is photos which are credited to the Press Office; a government agency. It comes down to are photographs a document? I think yes. --russavia (talk) 18:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. All the examples given in the law refer to documents of a legal nature. They explicitly say "documents", not "works". Eduard Petrovich Gavrilov, an eminent scholar of copyright in Russia, wrote in an extended commentary on article 8 of the 1993 copyright law (which covered the same as article 1259, paragraph 6 in the 2006 law, using similar language; these provisions have not changed with the 2006 law) that the reason for not copyrighting such official documents was that their publication was a necessity: it was a need of the society that laws and other official documents could be published freely. (See his full commentary at this archived link.) It has a certain logic: the people must know the decrees and laws if they are to follow them, so not copyrighting them in order to facilitate their distribution makes sense. This argument, however, does not hold for photos (at least in my opinion). There is no similar pressing need to distribute photos quickly and widely, so there is no pressing reason not to copyright them. In other countries, similar provisions that make laws, decrees, and other official documents copyright-free also exist, but in those countries I'm familiar with, this doesn't cover photographs published by governmental agencies. Are there any other, possibly more recent law commentaries on the Russian copyright law that could help shed a light on the question of whether "document" subsumes "photographs"? Lupo 21:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They document in an official visual form the workings of the government. They are not fundamentally creative in intent. Ergo, they are documents. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have written to the Kremlin a couple of weeks ago outlining the previous use of Kremlin photos on Wikimedia, and put forward to the Press office why it is of upmost importance for us to be able to use their materials on our projects. Today I have received an email from the Kremlin Press Office, with letters attached from Natalya Timakova (Press Secretary to the President of the Russian Federation) authorising use of Kremlin materials on our project under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported licence. This authorisation can be seen at Image:Kremlin authorisation-English.pdf and Image:Kremlin authorisation-Russian.pdf. I believe that we now have the authorisation needed in order to use Kremlin materials on our project, and as I have pointed Ms Timakova to this particular (and previous) discussion, I would like to thank her for responding and granting us the necessary permissions to use this ever-important material. A question now is, where do I forward this information and email in order for it to be kept on file? --russavia (talk) 17:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All sorted now, we now have this template to use for all Kremlin.ru images

Template:Kremlin.ru

This case can now be closed off. Thanks --russavia (talk) 19:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

AdelaideAirportSkyline.jpg

Hi,

This image has been deleted and un-deleted several times now. It existed happily on Wikipedia for over a year,and was then bot-moved to Commons. The Bot seem to broke the copyright tags, because it keeps getting blindly deleted. I have had discussions with User:Mardetanha but it was never mentioned:
- What information was missing
- How it could be fixed

It has been twice deleted for "Missing essential information: source, license and/or permission" even though both are clearly present on the original Wikipeida entry [3]. It has also been deleted for "In category Unknown - No timestamp given; not edited for 18 days." I asked what this means, but no one has replied.

Could someone please restore it, and let me know what exactly what information is missing.

--123.243.209.136 09:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done The problem is that this stupid bot doesn't know what to do with the English Wikipedia tag Template:PD-author. Here at the commons, a {{PD-author}} tag without author is a reason for speedy deletion. The bot should just have used {{PD-user-en}} instead of the ridiculous series of three tags all saying essentially the same thing. I've undeleted Image:AdelaideAirportSkyline.jpg and tagged it correctly. If we now could have some OTRS confirmation that en:User:AtD is indeed Adam Trevorrow, that'd be great. Lupo 10:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, it seems to me that the admin User:Mardetanha doesn't really know how to deal with Category:Unknown - No timestamp given. I've left him a message once before about this (see User talk:Mardetanha#Category:Unknown - No timestamp given), but apparently that didn't help. Unless he deleted this image because there was no confirmation that AtD is Mr. Trevorrow... Lupo 10:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your prompt help. Much appreciated. --123.243.209.136 11:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deletion of a an Image by an administrator on wrong pretext, I am requesting to undelete it

Without even informing me User:Mardetanha who also is an administrator here has deleted an Image I translated to Arabic on the basis of (falsely translated):

The original image is Image:Map of Kuwait Failaka (lithuanian).png
My translated version is Image:Map of Kuwait Failaka (lithuanian).jpg
Translation of a map for me is writing the names of locations in the copy, the exact way that the the native speakers of this language write it officially in their maps. That is what I have done.

I wrote the name of the Persian Gulf in Arabic as it is accepted in the Arabic Wikipedia الخليج العربي AKA the Arabian Gulf. This also is the official name that the Arab countries call it.

Does this mean if a Frenchman translating an English map would be falsely translating it by calling "The English Channel" "La Manche", therefor this should cause the image to be deleted immediately??!

Second what happened about neutrality here, I do not think this admin was neutral, maybe because of his nationality? I think it would have been better if he referred the issue to another admin. He should also have given me the chance to defend what I have translated in discussion, maybe I might abide by what he thinks I ought to do, why the assumptions?

Please also note that many other maps in Commons relating to the area in Arabic calling the Gulf exactly the same way I have called it.

I am a serious trusted Wikipedian, and I have over 25,000 edits from August 2007 till to day in the Arabic Wikipedia and I have uploaded at least 500 images here. I believe there is something wrong here, and I think I ought to be treated with the same serious way I participate in Wikipedia. So please I want this image reinstated.--Producer (talk) 23:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno, but dude you could have chosen a better name for your file...the new version was not Lithuanian. -Nard the Bard 23:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter what Language the original is, it was translated into Arabic for the Ararbic Wikimedia with the propper Arabic offical names. wriiten correctly in Arabic.--Producer (talk) 00:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the undelation.--Producer (talk) 00:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Prem Rawat related Deletions

Why were these deleted? These were uploaded with permission, under GNU Free Documentation License or {{cc-by-sa-3.0}}. jossi (talk) 17:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~It seems that User:Kelly, with which I had a content dispute at WP in an unrelated subject, has been tagging images for deletion with no basis. jossi (talk) 18:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

There was an email address on these images (legal@tprf.org) to which you can write to confirm the GNU and common licensing of these images. Note that I am an admin here, and at Wikipedia, but would prefer that another admin look into this. jossi (talk) 18:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For other admins attention i have restored all above mentioned images.i am in the hurry right now. i hope to see other admins point about these images.--Mardetanha ^talk 19:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have written to the Prem Rawat Foundation and asked them to submit an OTRS ticket with the licensing so this does not happen again. jossi (talk) 19:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there is reason to doubt the validity of a license, a deletion is not out of the question, but might be considered somewhat abrupt if the original license seemed to have been applied in good faith. How long had the deletion notice been in place before deletion? Normally for an established user it would be appropriate to ask that the license be clarified, by doing exactly what you suggest, writing the copyright owner, and asking that the permission be recorded in OTRS, and allowing some time for that to happen... how often do you visit here?

In this case, given the lack of an {{Information}} box, perhaps the provenance was not clear? As for the rest of this, in view of your comments apparently casting aspersions on Kelly's motives, I would hope that you, or anyone else, are not importing controversies from en:wp to Commons. That would not go over well. ++Lar: t/c 20:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The images had the {{Information}} box, and it had information that these images were uploaded by the copyright owner. The images also had an email address listed there from the copyright holder. I have emailed the copyright holder and told them to send a message to permissions-commons. (Why these were tagged for deletion in the first place is not entirely clear to me...) jossi (talk) 22:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I spot checked one of the images, I admit I didn't check them all. The version of Maharaji_Salamanca that Kelly tagged did not have an information box that I could see. ++Lar: t/c 23:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, the image was tagged on the 19th, and was deleted on the 27th. That's per process... I see Kelly tagged two images on your page, (neither of them mentioned in the above list) but did not list all of them. That's probably an area where things could be improved... did you get an email notification when your talk page was changed to add the two that were tagged? (MAHARAJI_WIKIPEDIA.jpg and the .ogg file) ? ... Commons has the ability to email you when your talk page is changed, I highly recommmend turning it on if you have not done so... very helpful. ++Lar: t/c 20:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip. I will enable email notices for changes. jossi (talk) 22:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More Prem Rawat related deletions

These images were also deleted:

You can see in the deletion log for these, that the images had the information needed Uploaded by [http:tprf.org/ The Prem Rawat Foundation], legal[at]tprf.org (albeit not on the {{Information}} box, but that could have been an easy fix) - All these images were tagged by Kelly. jossi (talk) 22:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but not all of them were notified to you, were they? Which seems a bit of a flaw there, if you're not notified you can't know to do something, even if you have email on. Well, anyway, can you please add the {{Information}} template to all the images as they get undeleted? It should give exactly where the image came from (down to the page and image link) and what is known about who took it and so forth. Thanks. Ask if you need examples to model after. ++Lar: t/c 22:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not upload these, just the last two on the list above. In any case, I will add the template and hopefully OTRS volunteers can add their tag once they receive a formal permission. jossi (talk) 22:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer if you undelete these rather than me. I will add the information template once undeleted. Thanks. jossi (talk) 22:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can do that. ++Lar: t/c 23:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...

Done ... advise of any others. I changed the section titles from very generic ones to something more meaningful when archiving. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 23:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Rydbergformula.jpg

Image:Rydbergformula.jpg was deleted because of "no permission", but it is unclear to me why a formula would need permission. If this is in en:Janne Rydberg's handwriting, he died in 1919. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image was tagged with {{CopyrightedFreeUse}} with a note that permission had been obtained from Lund University. It was nominated for deletion on February 8th, 2007 by User:Siebrand. It was deleted on March 24th, 2007 by me as it was still nominated.

Apparently it is a small photgraph of a small part of a paper which should be the Rydberg formula. Not sure if it can be copyrighted. However if it can - then I really doubt Lund University holds the copyright and can license the use. --|EPO| ^da: 09:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This must be a fragment from this page, the 1888 protocol of the scientific society of Lund. The university published this on the web, and may have made or ordered the reproduction, but according to current policies at Commons this does not matter (2D-reproduction). The handwriting is by Gustaf Daniel Heüman (1868-1934). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be very likely that the deleted image is a fragment of that photo. As Gustaf Daniel Heüman was the creator of this work and died in 1934 the copyright for the work expired in 2004 and may be used freely from January 1st, 2005.

I will restore the image and add these informations to the description. --|EPO| ^da: 12:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Images from Kremlin.ru

I request to undelete the next images:

Reason - the updated {{Kremlin.ru}}-license tag. Alex Spade (talk) 12:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly

Done by me .Sorry i couldn't restore one --Mardetanha ^talk 09:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request for undeletion of Ankara images

Many images of Ankara that were uploaded by the user Ankaralı Turgut have been deleted by the administrator Mardetanha and turned the Ankara article in the English Wikipedia into a huge chaos: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ankara

These include:

I uploaded these images and they had proper licensing information. Their license tags were vandalized by User:Giorgiomonteforti Ankaralı Turgut (talk) 00:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was no vandalism at all. The images had no sources and were tagged as such. Since nobody supplied sources, the images were deleted after seven days. However, the images were tagged {{self||GFDL|cc-by-sa-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0}}, which User:Giorgiomonteforti and the deleting admin User:Mardetanha should have taken as an indication that these images were made by the uploader. Lupo 11:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please undelete the images so that I can make the necessary changes? Ankaralı Turgut (talk) 17:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ankrali you have been notified about your images situation many time. but you didn't care . you have never answered to comment in your talk page --Mardetanha ^talk 17:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i will restored them for 1 or 2 day if you provide essential needs of the image we would keep them otherwise i will delete them again --Mardetanha ^talk 17:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's because I was busy editing the English Wikipedia and didn't even notice the situation until the images were deleted. I will fix them now, thank you very much for undeleting. Ankaralı Turgut (talk) 18:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe enable the "e-mail me when my talk page is changed" option in your preferences? That should help avoid the same problem in the future. Lupo 18:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip - and everything else, both of you :) Ankaralı Turgut (talk) 21:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One comment -- I think we should accept use of the "self" tag as a claim of self-made (i.e. source). Requiring the additional text "self-made" elsewhere on the page seems like a silly technicality over which to remove the work of uploaders, resulting in needlessly lost images and a lot of frustration/confusion. If an image is blatantly not self-made, then require a source, but that is no different even if the "self-made" claim is made elsewhere. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

1912 Summer Olympics in Stockholm

File:Football at the 1912 Summer Olympics - Denmark squad.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
File:1912 Baseball Olympics.PNG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
File:Traneberg_1912.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
File:Rasunda 1912.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
File:Thorpe race.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
File:Thorpe gold medal.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
File:Jim Thorpe1912 Olympics.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
File:Jim Thorpe olympic.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
File:Jim Thorpe discus.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
File:J O Stockholm 1912 Bouin et Koleheimen.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
File:GB Water Polo 1912.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
File:Footballl at the 1912 Summer Olympics - Germany squad.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
File:Football venues Stockholm 1912.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
File:Football atthe 1912 Summer Olympics - Norway squad.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
File:Football at the 1912 Summer Olympics.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
File:Football at the 1912 Summer Olympics - UK v.s. Hungary.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
File:Football at the 1912 Summer Olympics - UK squad.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
File:Football at the 1912 Summer Olympics - Sweden squad.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
File:Football at the 1912 Summer Olympics - Russia squad.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
File:Football at the 1912 Summer Olympics - Netherlands squad.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

and about 50 more images deleted by EPO (talk · contribs). This admin's reasoning seems to be based on a confused mixture of trademark law and copyright law, with amazing statements on his talk page like: "They will become public domain if Swedish Olympic Committee "dies" one day."

In fact, according to Swedish law, such images by press photographers were not considered to be "works", and were protected for just 25 years, and {{PD-Sweden-1969}} applies. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have had a busy week so unfortunately I did not have the time to take a closer look to your arguments and give you an answer.

The confusion is in no way about trademark law. On the contrary I read the law's text through and assumed that the copyright was transferred as per § 27 and then would expire as described in § 43. (English translation) That is the reason for my statement as quoted above. As I understanded your wordings you did not seem 100 % sure. And as I could see on your userpage you speak Swedish quite good, I tried to encourage you to find a legal conlusion. But it seems as we have misunderstood each other on that point.

Thus I was not aware that press images from before 1969 would be considered public domain images (not works).

Sadly I do not have the time this evening to go through the deletions and restore them. And I will most likely not have before Wednesday. I will see if I can get an other administrator to do the job for me. --|EPO| ^da: 16:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well EPO pop'd onto IRC and asked for help restoring. I restored the images listed above. I don't know what the other ones are. So if the complaining party wants to post a note on my talk page with the rest of them... I will restore them. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 17:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you (and EPO). The rest you can find in EPO's deletion log for October 13 (they are all very clearly marked in the edit summary). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 20:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you once again. This restored about 70 images to Category:1912 Summer Olympics. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Flags of Pittsburgh and Philadelphia

From what I can gather from cached pages from google, both the Image:Flag of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.png and Image:Flag of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.png were deleted because they had an obsolete license tag. But, both the flags are in the public domain and can use the {{PD-US}} tag as they were both adopted before 1923, so I would like to request their undeletion. I would done the switch earlier, but their was no warning until they disappeared from various pages yesterday. --Dtbohrer (talk) 14:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I second that wish and ask it is done fast. Afterwards please run the delinker bot again and restore the images in all projects. --h-stt !? 13:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note with the admin who deleted them. --Dtbohrer (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the admin does not bother to respond. Why cannot another admin be bold and do something to handle this month-old reasable undeletion request? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like these have been undeleted so closed. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Agathon Léonard00.jpg, Image:Agathon Léonard01.jpg, Image:Agathon Léonard04.jpg, Image:Agathon Léonard05.jpg,

This is not so much a request for undeletion as a criticism of the procedure followed for deletion. I was invited to take part in a discussion on the "proposed" deletion of the images by Mutter Erde at 10:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)only to find when I logged in at about 15:20 that the image had already been deleted by ABF at 14:06, 18 September 2008 . This is not the first time that I receive an invitation after the event!! It's a crazy setup that desperately needs to be corrected. ciao Rotational (talk) 16:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand your feeling that this was a bit quick, but it is normal here for images that an admin considers to be obvious copyright violations to be deleted promptly. In the case of these images, the last was of poor quality and was deleted on the basis that you obviously did not take the photo yourself, and hence did not have authority to upload it here. To do so you would either need to have the original photographer's licence or be able to prove that the image was in the public domain and out of copyright (eg because the photographer must have died more than 70 years ago. You can find the licensing rules at COM:L. The other images were photos of figurines, and these will still be under copyright protection. Please see COM:CB for guidance as to the sort of photos we can accept here. If you need any help or if anything is unclear, please leave me a message on my talk page. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that ABF is confused about Commons' normal procedure - see here. If you can work out from his notes why he assumed that I claimed that the images were selfmade and secondly why I was invited to discuss the deletion when the deletion had already taken place, then you are a better man than I am. I truly think that ABF's claim to be "able to contribute with an advanced level of English" needs to be revised - his broken English and poor comprehension make for difficult communication. The really irritating issue is that the current deletion procedure does NOT afford the image uploader the opportunity of contributing to a discussion before deletion takes place. This needs to be revised. ciao Rotational (talk) 19:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the discussion on ABF's talk page. Actually, it doesn't matter whether the figurine photos were taken by you or not: in either case the images would have to be deleted as you have no licence from the copyright owner (the creator of the original 3D figurine design or his/her employer). The procedures generally allow 7 days for discussion but, as here, obvious copyright violations can be deleted earlier. That does not affect your right to comment and to argue that the admin's decision to delete was wrong - as you are doing on this very page. If the decision was wrong, another admin can reverse it and restore any deleted image but in my view the deletion was a correct application of copyright law. Sorry. You might like to have a look at the 3D art section of COM:CB#Art (copies of): essentially, the photos you uploaded were equivalent to photos of recent sculptures. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prefaced with This is not so much a request for undeletion I guess this is closed by now. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:O Clone advertisement.jpg

This image does not violate any copyright law, since it is available for mere announcement and didatic information of its content on Wikipedia in English. The issue is that the uploader of this image has been victim of persecution led by personal reasons from those who claim total domain under the pages where this image should be inserted.

The image has been deleted twice for being a copyright violation. To have it restored you woould need to show that the image has been freely licenced by the copyright holder for use for any purpose (licences that allow educational use only or use on Wikipedia only are not enough). So far as I can see, it appears just to have been taken from some web page and there is no valid licence from the copyright holder at all. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no copyright requirement by any holder at all, that is the question; whereas the image remains scattered and ignored on the internet, with its creator hidden in anonymity, considering its noble informative importance, which, unfortunately, will be missed with its deletion. As a result, the image must be considered free for use; and no requirement of copyright will ever be taken.--Thedreamer (talk) 03:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the way we work here. The fact that you do not know who the copyright owner is does not make the image free. Please see COM:PRP. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am really sorry for that, especially for all this bureaucracy, which only hinders the free access to any piece of information. The Wikipedia project cannot be considered in its slogan as a free deed any longer. In this case, if you are able to delete the files, please, be also able to delete my account. I better quit, since I see that my contribution does not have any relevance at all. --Thedreamer (talk) 23:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given the time elapsed I guess this is closed --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Map-Hispanophone World.png

This image was deleted as a “copyright violation”, but there is no entry for it in deletion requests, nothing on the talk page (either of the image or of the deleter) suggesting it was a copyvio (and the page had 295(!) revisions when it was deleted). The image was also in a typical Commons style, based on one of the commons gray-on-white world maps. The deletion makes little sense to me. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 23:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to have been undeleted. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Speedy deletion request of the image Human testicle.JPG

There are no other images of this type to closely demonstrate the size and shape of a (single) human testicle. In this sense "yet another testicle" is not appropriate argument. The image is within the project scope. Richiex (talk) 05:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closed - never actually deleted. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Speedy deletion of the image Shaved erect penis and pubic area.jpg

There where no reasons for speedy deletion. Image was in right category demonstrating shaved genitalia and thus within the project scope. There where no other images of this type demonstrating shaved and clearly erect (upright) penis and pubic area. There is not much redundancy in the category shaved male genitalia (9 images) vs. 110 images in the category female shaved genitalia. There is a strong impression of administrators being biased.Richiex (talk) 06:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think we have enough mediocre flash self-photographs of people's junk. The world is full of other people / places / objects... Megapixie (talk) 15:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whe have enough penis on commons. This is shaved to Image:Erect penis shaved pubic hair.JPG Sterkebaktalk 16:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted This is shaved and clearly erect.We have many penis images,why are you objecting? You have uploaded many other male genitalia imageswhich should be sufficient.--Paloma Walker (talk) 15:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted per above. Stifle (talk) 18:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as remaining undeleted per the above comments. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

brains

Hello... You deleted my picture... But this picture is my own work. I put it on brains.hu also please undelete my pictures

Can you please indicate which picture you mean, and also sign your post? Many thanks. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing else heard. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

temporay undelete

I would like to keep the info about the partners and their contributions — Preceding unsigned comment added by DIRadioCast (talk • contribs) 22:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be clearer? What image are you talking about? -- Deadstar (msg) 07:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No further info. -- Deadstar (msg) 21:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Undelete - Image:AccelerEyesLogo.png

Image:AccelerEyesLogo.png

I own this image and filled out all of the forms properly. I also sent an email to: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org as follows,

Please undelete this image or tell me what I did wrong!!!

Best,

John

To Whom It May Concern,

Please take this email as verification that we authorize the AccelerEyes logo for use on Wikipedia:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:AccelerEyesLogo.png

Best,

John

-- John Melonakos CEO

Logo's are deleted because the company has the rights and fair use is not allouwd on commons. If you have send the permission to commons and it is all oke... The user that handled the email will undelete the image. I think that you have to wait till otrs has responded. Sterkebaktalk 13:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If properly licensed, we would allow them -- but to be uploaded to commons (a different project than wikipedia), permission must be given to everyone, not just Wikipedia (the company could retain all trademark rights, but would have to freely license the copyright). Without that, the image would not be undeleted. You could also upload to English wikipedia directly under fair use. In either case however, it looks like the use is on a newly-created en-wiki article about the company authored by the principals of the company, so if that article eventually gets removed as non-notable, then even if licensed properly the image here may also be deleted as out-of-scope. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I just blocked John on English Wikipedia for continuing to post COI/Advertising articles after a level 3 warning about inappropriate articles by another user.--User:Doug^{(talk • contribs)} 17:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closed. ~~Not undeleted. In view of en wp issues this would be out of scope even if the licensing were appropriate.~~ OK I see it was undeleted. Given the en wp issues mentioned above then I have deleted it again as being "out of scope". Correct licensing is fine but only if within scope. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Waals-brabant.png

As far as I know, this was merely the flag of a Belgian province... And these things are as "public" as can be, usually they're even the same thing as the coat of arms (just another, rectangular shape). There can be no copyvio of public domain coat of arms, not to mention flag representations of those coats of arms.

By the way, instead of just deleting this image from tens of articles on the different Wikipedias (seriously messing up dozens of infoboxes and articles on Wikipedias in different languages), it would have been nice if people were just warned that somebody was about to throw this away just like that. --LimoWreck (talk) 11:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same design as Image:Brabanwa.gif? This is probably old enough for PD. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Speedy-undelete Why does it take so much longer to decide this? Commons has lots of admins that are triggerhappy to delete, but this simple and reasonable undeletion request has been hanging here for almost two months now, without any comment from an administrator. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image is merely a lower resolution duplicate of Image:Brabanwa.gif, I don't see what's the point of undeleting it. --Waldir ^talk 08:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Waldir. It is the same image. You can use Brabanwa.gif. Or is there a good reasson why that is not posible? Sterkebaktalk 09:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but it was deleted as copyvio, which it is not. It should not have been deleted if it was in use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll issue a replacement to CommonsDelinker, since it seems to be used. As for this request, I think it can be closed. --Waldir ^talk 10:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a duplicate that can be used. Image is replaced by commonsdelinker Sterkebaktalk 10:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Ferdinand Heinke.jpg

Ridiculous. The DR was only open for a few hours, and the close completely goes against policy and the PD-art policy. There wasn't even an OTRS request, just a vague legal threat of "we can't allow you to use our public domain work." If reason to delete it is shown, fine, but not without full community input. Otherwise we are left with a useless PD-art policy (which is an official resolution of the WMF) and we are hobbled by two-bit hucksters who think they can proprietize public domain artwork. Let the DR run for the full 7 days at the very least. -Nard the Bard 17:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the image is deleted on user request. I don't see why we need to put it back?

wijz) 9 okt 2008 13:04 . . Paulae (Overleg | bijdragen | blokkeren) (2.200 bytes) (Nominating image for deletion)

Cheers, Sterkebaktalk 17:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paulae does not want to be billed, see User talk:EPO#Image:Ferdinand_Heinke.jpg. That is very understandable. But Bard can upload, if he is willing to take the risk. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I should check to see if my liability insurance covers copyright :P -Nard the Bard 18:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As this undeletion was requested on a wrong basis I am deleting it again. --|EPO| ^da: 12:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the old nor the new {{PD-art}} policy is in conflict with German law as faithful reproductions of two-dimensional works of art are not eligible for copyright in Germany. Please take a look at the old entry for Germany. Consequently, I suggest to undelete this image if the applicability of {{PD-art}} in Germany was the only problem of this image. --AFBorchert (talk) 13:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you can read in the deletion request and on my talk page the only problem was that the publisher wants money for the derivative photo, but the uploader is not willing to pay the publisher or risk any lawsuit. --|EPO| ^da: 13:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very good. Make the file available to me and I will upload it. -Nard the Bard 14:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was uploaded again as Image:Ferdinand Heinke.JPG. Yann (talk) 13:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

uploaded under a new name Sterkebaktalk 09:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deferred_Lighting.png Diagram

The image Deferred_Lighting.png is not spam. It's a diagram that shows the various stages of deferred rendering, and how they come together to form the final image. It's a useful visual for getting the point across of how the technique works.

I can't find a image under that title. You have a direct link? Sterkebaktalk 11:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I re-uploaded it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferred_shading

-Josh

Uploaded on en.wiki Sterkebaktalk 16:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Leadwerks_Engine.png

I uploaded this screenshot for the article on our engine here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leadwerks

In the "Game Engines" article, Leadwerks Engine appears in the top ten commercial game engines: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_engine#Top_10_commercial_engines

If this is spam, then you should delete the images from the following articles as well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C4_Engine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreal_engine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_engine

Commons does not allow fair use images. The images you point out were uploaded locally to the English Wikipedia, which does accept fair use. You can upload this one there too, as long as you provide a valid fair use rationale. --Waldir ^talk 09:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:DeletedFile.jpg

This image File:Haydn Porter.jpg is a FREE preview provided by Playboy on the following page: [4]It is provided at no cost to encourage customers to subscribe to the site, and so its distribution does not harm Playboy financially or otherwise. This constitutes "fair use".

TickledBoo (talk) 23:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commons doesn't accept fair use. See Commons:Licensing. -Nard the Bard 05:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closing the discussion: the policy is clear, there's no way around. --Waldir ^talk 09:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Series of deletions of User:Mardetanha from 7 Oct 2008

I request that the files deleted by User:Mardetanha on 7 Oct 2008 are reviewed to see whether they indeed had no copyright information, and if needed undeleted. The said admin deleted the files in haste, without carefully checking for each file whether information about copyright was indeed missing. This follows from (a) one case of deleted image from Gray's anatomical atlas, and (b) the deletion of a series of files took place at 11:57 and 11:58, a short time. So to all appearances, the said admin was deleting files merely per their belonging to Category:Unknown as of 28 September 2008.

I also request that no one who proceeds so carelessly as the said admin is assigned admin rights. The said admin writes "I" with lowercase "i" and occassionaly starts sentences in lowercase, which shows great haste and disregard for conventions. --Dan Polansky (talk) 04:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not all admins are native English speakers... and admins are overworked. No need to bring stuff like that up; your first point was enough. To that, I agree in general -- admins should be checking that the image descriptions don't actually contain the information, rather than just being misplaced on the page and ending up in an Unknown category due to mere formatting issues. I've seen that happen when another user adds an Information template but does not move the (existing and valid) info inside of it. Mass deleting images inside an Unknown category (where they got there due to apparently-missing fields in an Information template) is not a good idea. That said, I'm not an admin myself so I can't see if the deletions were legitimate are not (I'm sure some of them were). It's possible he read through them all first then deleted in bulk. It would probably be good to check though -- the Gray's anatomy file was one case where the source and author was contained in a single template, and so was not in both fields. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No need to check all his deletions. A trusted user on commons. Please come back with links to the images that are deleted wrong Sterkebaktalk 11:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC) [reply]

I am reopening this. There is an obvious need to check this. We users cannot do that, administrators need to look at it. As far as I am concerned, this is a distrusted user. In his answer to Polansky he is just playing dumb. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Urban Explorer Hobart.jpg

Was deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Urban Explorer Hobart.jpg. I didn't fight it too strongly as it seemed to be legitimate to me. It was deleted due to freedom of panorama laws not being applicible to 2d artworks in australia (The artwork being graffiti in the shot). I more recently noticed a specific policy on the issue at COM:CB#Graffiti which makes it seem to me that it should be undeleted or I could reupload it. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I was the nominator of the image but was unaware of the graffiti policy at the time. I now retract my nomination and support undeletion of the file. -Nard the Bard 05:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The COM:CB#Graffiti policy has been challenged now and again, but there has so far been no consensus to change it. On that basis, this image is OK. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, we ran over each other undeleting the files :) --Waldir ^talk 08:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

MediaWiki:UploadFormCategoriesLabel/ko

Hello. This message was deleted by User:LERK, given reason was "Duplicate of Betawiki". but it is not duplicate. Please restore this message. Thanks.--Kwj2772 (d) 07:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed by LERK Sterkebaktalk 22:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi, the file that used to be at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Sonja_Bernhardt_at_WITI_2005.jpg has been deleted, not completely sure why, the log says something about no category and not edited for a certain number of days but it isn't clear to me what has to be "edited" once a picture is up. More likely is there's been a delay in getting the official permission from the person who took the photo but that should have been received by now... probably after the picture was deleted!—Preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.105.232.163 (talk) 26 October 2008 08:33 (UTC)

Not done OTRS pending for over 3 years. Sterkebaktalk 09:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Blond little girl.jpg

This was deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Blonde boy and girl.JPG. This file wasn't even nominated for deletion...and it is highly used in many wikis. I don't see how it could be a rights violation... it's just a picture of a girl. That's it. -Nard the Bard 00:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it, Image:P9250107.JPG as well. I just noticed this was one of my own uploads deleted, and without even a notification. -Nard the Bard 02:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Deleted for no reason. Mr. Mario (talk) 00:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was a quite clear personality rights violation of the kids. We should never allow image especially of children without a doubtless and documented confirmation that the parents allow the usage. Why didn't you take part in the discussion? [[ Forrester ]] 20:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Because I WAS NEVER NOTIFIED, despite being an uploader of one of the files. -Nard the Bard 19:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - uploaders never notified and there is no blanket prohibition on photos of children. Since non-admins can't see the image now we have no idea whether there was a reasonable expectation of privacy or any indicia of waiver.--User:Doug^{(talk • contribs)} 19:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The image is a face from a little girl. There is no reasson why it should be back. In order for the personality rights of the kid i think we keep the image deleted. Sterkebaktalk 19:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not done --O (谈 • висчвын) 01:30, 28 October 2008 (GMT)

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

Gallerygirl

Please undelete Gallerygirl.jpg. It is my own work, created by me, of photographs I took of my wife, Valerie Shakespeare, that we used as ads for our own gallery, Shakespeare's Fvlcrvm, which we owned from 1993 until it closed because of 9/11. These photos were shown by me, as art, in Robert Miller gallery, in April, 1999.

It is in Wikimedia Commons, to facilitate uploading it to a Wikipedia article on Shakespeare's Fvlcrvm (Also knowm as Fulcrum Gallery) by my wife, Valerie Shakespeare.

Please undelete, Terry Fugate-Wilcox (see Wikipedia article on me, to verify)fvlcrvm 18:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - i am still thinking the image was out of scope. Sterkebaktalk 19:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Please see en:Fulcrum Gallery. There is an amazing amount of press coverage for this business. The topic is encyclopedic and hence within scope. -Nard the Bard 23:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to Nard the Bard. I thought this image was deleted for copyright issues. I believe I have answered any concerns about copyrights. Now Sterkbak is talking about scope. Was my image deleted because it was "out of scope? And what does that mean? An enormous amount of press was generated because of those ads,(including the episode of People's Court) and most of the information was added by someone else. I simply thought people would appreciate actually seeing the ads that generated all that controversey. So, I uploaded a collage of the ads, that my husband had created for another purpose. Someone kept deleting it, saying it was a copyright violation. It is not. So I ask again, Please undelete. fvlcrvm 16:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Scope is defined at Commons:Project scope. Generally speaking, pictures not useful for Wikimedia or Wikipedia are considered outside the scope, especially if they are personal images with no usefulness. Usually in borderline cases the deletion should be debated, and in many cases whether or not the image should appear in a Wikipedia article isn't even a matter for Commons to decide, but for the local Wikipedia to decide. If this case is borderline it should be undeleted and opened for debate, rather than deleted outright. -Nard the Bard 16:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The image looks like a reclame, but i would like to see the deletion discussion back. No problems here to undelete en start the discussion again. Sterkebaktalk 17:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image looks to me to be out of scope & likely to be promotional. Not necessary & so do not undelete. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now I don't know what a "reclame" is. Thank you to Sterkbak for willingness to undelete. As to Herbythyme, how can 9-year-old photos from a gallery that ceased to exist over 6 years ago be promotional? Promoting what, may I ask? Also, since the article is about, in part, a series of ads that sparked enomous contrversey, with accompanying press in its own time, I do not see how adding an image of those (long ago) controversial ads is "not necessary". It seems to me, that anyone reading about any controversey would like to see what it was about and judge for themselves.fvlcrvm 17:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe its a idea to upload it on your wiki local. So the image and the article are on the same wiki. Cheers, Sterkebaktalk 18:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

“Reclame” is Dutch for “advertisement”. --AVRS (talk) 20:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Could you please direct me to the instructions on how to do that? I would really appreciate it.fvlcrvm 18:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi if your local wiki is the english one you see left on the page the navigation. The second from below (the one above the interwiki) has the name toolbox. In that menu it's the thirth like upload file that one you must have. You come to a page on that page you can choose to go to the uploadform. Suc6 Sterkebaktalk 18:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete -- I find the arguments that these photos are promotional very weak. Geo Swan (talk) 21:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New deletion request. --O (谈 • висчвын) 19:30, 28 October 2008 (GMT)

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

Deletion of my files

I don't know what happened but as I looked my images where gone. Someone put a sign with an erect penis on my talk page but I did not even upload penis. I really don't know what happened. Also the pictures where not of bad quality. They were good. Better than many others there. Why is there this penis on my page? --Assdpt (talk) 20:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your images where out of scope. So the where deleted. Sterkebaktalk 20:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What means out of scope here. They were as good/ as bad as any other picture of this topic. Which scope? Who defines this scope? And why is there a penis on my page. I never uploaded a penis.--Assdpt (talk) 20:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope means we have enough vulva on commons. We don't need anymore of those. There for are you files deleted. Sorry, Sterkebaktalk 21:32, 28 October 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:AccelerEyesLogo.png"

This image was deleted because the corresponding Wikipedia page was deleted. But now the problems with the Wikipedia page have been resolved, so we request that the image be restored for proper viewing on that page.

Note that the copyright for this image was already granted:

"Image:AccelerEyesLogo.png" ‎ (2 revisions and 1 file restored: permission for use received via OTRS # 2008102410003338)

Thank you for your help!

Hi, you are right that the copyright has already been confirmend by OTRS. The image is deleted the second times because it was out of scope. I am thinking to undelete the images but make a Deletion request for it. That way the the commons users can decide a week of the image is out of scope or not. I need to here some opinions before i undelete. Sterkebaktalk 21:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I saw this version of your user talk page there I felt as en wp had deleted the article a number of times & blocked you from editing that it was not within our scope. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to modify something after it is "closed", but -- if the article on en-wiki remains (and it is there, after being deleted and recreated a couple times), then by definition the image would be in scope and should be undeleted. I haven't seen any discussion that the page there has been "resolved", rather than just recreated again, but maybe it has. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image is local on the en.wiki. There is no need for it on commons. First see of the article stays on en.wiki and then we can undelete. Sterkebaktalk 16:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not done - extra info by Herby. Image stay deleted. Sterkebaktalk 08:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2008-10

Deletion of "Jens_Fink-Jensen.jpg"

sps new logo.jpg deletion

Bayeux-crypte1.JPG unfair vote

user warrington

misc. request

German signatures

two images relating to otrs ticket 2007031810003991

Undelete request / needs persons with excellent comprehension of French

Image: iROCK109Logo.jpg

Request for Undeletion

Image:WomenAircraftWorkers.jpg

Deletion

Request

Image:Monika_Hauser.jpg

Undeletion of my user page request

Someone

Undelete

SNS Heinlein.jpg

Request to undelete Image:Cal Hep B Free Logo.png

Undeletion of file

Undeletion request

GROUP PHOTO MC LALAMUSA

Image:Gray1120.png

PD-RU-exempt images from Kremlin.ru

AdelaideAirportSkyline.jpg

Deletion of a an Image by an administrator on wrong pretext, I am requesting to undelete it

Prem Rawat related Deletions

More Prem Rawat related deletions

Images from Kremlin.ru

Request for undeletion of Ankara images

1912 Summer Olympics in Stockholm

Flags of Pittsburgh and Philadelphia

Image:Agathon Léonard00.jpg, Image:Agathon Léonard01.jpg, Image:Agathon Léonard04.jpg, Image:Agathon Léonard05.jpg,

Speedy deletion request of the image Human testicle.JPG

Speedy deletion of the image Shaved erect penis and pubic area.jpg

brains

temporay undelete

Undelete - Image:AccelerEyesLogo.png

Deferred_Lighting.png Diagram

Leadwerks_Engine.png

Series of deletions of User:Mardetanha from 7 Oct 2008

Image:Urban Explorer Hobart.jpg

Gallerygirl

Deletion of my files

Please Undelete "Image:AccelerEyesLogo.png"

Navigation menu

Search