Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2010-05

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

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

agkistrodon venom

[edit]

Justass deleted my article titled Agkistrodon venom. I would like it undeleted so that i may post it instead on wikipedia, not wikimedia commons. This is my first time using wikipedia. i didn't realize there was a difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cadunagan (talk • contribs) 22:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done I moved it to User:Cadunagan/Agkistrodon venom. Note, that the images you use are not free content and not free to reuse by anyone, anytime, for any purpose including commercial use and so on. Please pay attention to upload only freely licensed media files or media files with expired copyrights. See Commons:Licensing. --Martin H. (talk) 22:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Duo-Zikr.jpg

[edit]

Please undelete this file, the work is under licence BY-ND (Attribution + NoDerivatives). Go here http://zikr.ru/#/media/ and look in the picture in a lower left corner of screen. Oleksiyv (talk) 19:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not done - I'm afraid that we do not accept no derivatives licences at commons. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Undeletion request for some files uploaded by Bijltjespad

[edit]

Herewith I would ask to undelete the following files, which were uploaded by me: File:Junnerweg.jpg, File:Gevangenen Erica.JPG, File:Kamp Erica.JPG, File:Viadotto viletta piazza al serchio 10 2008.jpg and File:Vista Valdarno N..JPG These pictures were either taken by me, or by my grandfather, as I have stated on [[1]]. The first 3 files are ca. 60 years old, taken by my grandfather and have or should have the {PD-Heirs} license. The latter two are taken by me. I have used Italian in naming the pictures which doesn't mean that were not mine. Italian seemed convenient to me and to Italian users. Bijltjespad (talk) 09:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Support with {{PD-heirs}}. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Some "own work" images uploaded by User Bijltjespad. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please explain why File:Kamp Erica.JPG that were taken by your grandfather is available in un-cropped version at go2war2.nl with the references to Historische Kring Ommen -Justass (talk) 09:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This can be explained. First of all, my father is an active member of the Historische Kring Ommen and has donated historic material. Secondly, these pictures and several others cannot be found on the site of HKO, but at the site oudommen.nl on page [2]; the person who is responsable for putting several pictures and movies on the internet was an employee at my grandfathers in the early 1950's. He did not bother much about copyrights, since he writes on both sites that the HKO / Oud Ommen assumes not to violate copyrights with publishing pictures (or in Dutch: De HKO / OudOmmen meent met de publicaties van de foto's geen auteursrechten te schenden). There is even a picture of prisoners taken from the first floor of his house in the Bouwstraat. Bijltjespad (talk) 13:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Undeletion request withdrawn. Bijltjespad (talk) 11:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed - undeletion request withdrawn by requester. — Dferg (talk) 21:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

i request the undeletion of my work

[edit]

as this is my work %100 this image I have gained permission to use and it is all legitimate and as i am aloud to post my own work on here i so fore see that my work has not breached any codes laws or practises and there fore should not have been deleted


Ryan Hawkins — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkiiie (talk • contribs) 01:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at your upload log, the files you uploaded were attack images (i.e. defamation). Drop it and consider yourself lucky that you haven't been blocked yet. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, after a review of your deleted files, I have to agree completly with LX. — Dferg (talk) 21:36, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

My fathers photo

[edit]

Please uplaod the photo as i am the owner of that photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stilak (talk • contribs)

Hi Stilak. You don't appear to have any deleted contributions, so I'm not entirely sure what you're after. We can't upload a photo for you. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed, nothing to undelete. — Dferg (talk) 21:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Homepage-doomby.png

[edit]

I would like to request the undeletion of the above file:

  • it is a screenshot of a publicly visible website
  • it is being used to illustrate an entry written about that website
  • it is being used with the express permission of the management of the company responsable for the publication of the website, to illustrate an entry about their website

Many thanks for your consideriation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colinblane (talk • contribs) 13:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please have the copyright holder send an email to OTRS providing permission for anyone to use this image for any purpose. Thanks. –Tryphon☂ 14:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re-uploaded in the meantime, OTRS will deal with it. –Tryphon☂ 10:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Vragisolstribe.gif

[edit]

"Can be reuploaded/restored next year. Giggy (talk) 12:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)" Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Vragisolstribe.gif Teofilo (talk) 15:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done, now {{PD-old}}. –Tryphon☂ 14:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

Please undelete my file "palak on a chair.jpg"

[edit]

Please undelete my file "palak on a chair.jpg". I have the rights to put it up but as i m new i may not know the correct procedure. Ursite is not easy to handle u shud understand this, i have always lost my way in the middle.

Can u plz tell me which licence to use as i have the rights to upload this pic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oopsalion (talk • contribs) 20:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You lost it already in the beginning as you wrote the author name 'jj' and the source 'jj' and you copied images from that persons facebook. You maybe want to give correct information now: Who is the author (photographer), where was it published (source) and did the copyright holder gave permission, that everyone can reuse the image freely for every purpose including e.g. modification or commercial reuse? --Martin H. (talk) 21:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, requester has not provided the necessary source information. –Tryphon☂ 14:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Gurcharan Singh.JPG

[edit]

To whom it may concern,

This file has been deleted citing a copyright violation. This is related to the article that "Justass" found on the Ealing Times website. I would like it to be known that they were issued the photo by me and therefore, there is no violation.

Can you please undelete the file and allow me to publish it?

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gsinghonline (talk • contribs) 21:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The uploaded photo (EXIF) and the website http://gurcharansingh.co.uk/blog/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=54 have an matching, detailed author information. The source information you provided says only own work. It would be best, if you can provide a written permission to OTRS confirming who the copyright holder is (the photographer, [3] ?) and that the copyright holder releases the photo under a free license allowing for free reuse. Note however, that the upload form asks you if something was published before and that in such a case you have to provide written evidence anyway. --Martin H. (talk) 22:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, will be restored by OTRS when they receive proper permission. –Tryphon☂ 14:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:MutantPress EVIL.jpg

[edit]

Please undelete this file, I own copyright and can give you information. This is original image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Czpddz (talk • contribs) 02:44, 2010 April 26 (UTC)

So please send that information to OTRS, and they will restore the file once the ticket is processed. –Tryphon☂ 06:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, will be restored by OTRS when they receive proper permission. –Tryphon☂ 14:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Cubeclibre.jpg

[edit]

Hi,


I've received a deletion request for a picture I took and share on my wiki page. I really don't see why someone would want to have it taken off(deleted), since Im the one who took this picture with my camera, and that Im currently working on that Cubec project with the rhinoceros party of Canada. There are even members of the rhinoceros party that are in Cuba at the moment to promote the Cubec idea.

I want you to consider that Im having the copyrights for that picture, and there arent any name mistakes for the file name.

Its my project and should stay that way,

Please tell me more about this, I dont agree about that deletion,


Valery Latulippe


The Wikimedia Commons page User talk:Valery Latulippe has been changed on 30 April 2010 by Skeezix1000, see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Valery_Latulippe for the current revision.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Valery Latulippe (talk • contribs) 17:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an undeletion request, since the file in question hasn't been deleted yet. You need to go Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cubeclibre.jpg and discuss the proposed deletion there.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to be done. –Tryphon☂ 14:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Vals

[edit]

Please undelete this category. It was removed without discussion. -- User:Docu at 13:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was removed to force people to use another cat when they use JavaScript categorisation. IMHO it is a good idea. ~ bayo or talk 19:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible that it was done to "force people", but simply because an administrator disagrees with someone, he/she can't use admin tools and delete categories. -- User:Docu at 19:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Disagree I agree with User:Bayo that I also do not see a problem with the deletion of the cat. Its existence would just generate incorrectly categorised images as all "Vals" pictures woud end up there. No need to undelete. -- Deadstar (msg) 16:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
JavaScript doesn't work as Bayo suggests. -- User:Docu at 17:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As in category:Inn and category:Jura that Docu restored: images stay there almost for ever (I move regularly items that are stuck in Category:Non-empty disambiguation categories). Note that the template does not work perfectly, so one can often find several non-empty disambiguation categories in the parent category too. --Foroa (talk) 18:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The nice thing about Category:Inn is that we can now know why it happens and when it happens.
Apparently there is a bot that needs fixing.
If it's just for your peace of mind, we could add them periodically to the 110,000 uncategorized.
In any case, I agree with Bayo, we should keep JavaScript working, deleting the category isn't an option, even less without discussing it with other editors first. -- User:Docu at 19:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Question Don't take this the wrong way Docu, I'm just curious to hear your viewpoint on what the point is of having a lot of categories that in effect should not be used (by bot or humans)? Doesn't that just create more work/confusion/incomplete properly named categories for people looking for images? -- Deadstar (msg) 08:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which category/ies and at what point? This one or some created by Foroa? -- User:Docu at 09:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This one as an example? -- Deadstar (msg) 09:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At what point do you feel it confuses you or your bot? -- User:Docu at 09:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry. Maybe this will help (I have no bot btw). In the following scenario I find it confusing to have a "category:Vals": I find a picture of "Vals" and it sits in the category:Vals. Unfortunately, by going to the category:"Vals" I cannot tell which "Vals" (placename) it is, and which of the other images in the category might relate to the same "Vals" that my first picture is of. So I would much prefer if the category "Vals" did not exist, and that only the specific "vals (location)" would be there (as is the case at the moment), as it would ensure that when I go to the category mentioned at the bottom of my initial image, I would not be sidetracked/bogged down with images that had no relation to it. Kind regards, -- Deadstar (msg) 14:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In your sample, would the category be red as it's now or would there be a category description of Vals? What would the description say? How did the image get into the category? Currently, there are no images with that category. -- User:Docu at 15:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess exactly how images have been trapped in Category:Inn and Category:Bowls. As User Bayo states; Deleting them "... is a good idea" and don't harm at all JavaScript, especially if the disambiguation categories are badly maintained as is the case on Commons. --Foroa (talk) 16:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We discussed Inn before. Let's see what Deadstar thinks. -- User:Docu at 16:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<unindent> In my example, the category "Vals" would have been restored, and images would have been categorised in it (by user/bot etc., doesn't matter for the example). There could be a disambiguation link or description at the top, but the fact that the picture I found sits in a category that is then disambiguated means to me that the "refined" category would likely not hold all the images around the subject. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I wouldn't mind making the category hidden. This way standard users starting from images wont come across it. -- User:Docu at 09:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry this is taking so long Docu, I don't have much time on Commons at the moment. Perhaps a silly question, but what is the difference between not having the category and having it hidden? -- Deadstar (msg) 08:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No hurry, thanks for helping us clean-up another one of what some call "Foroa's solo attempt". As Bayo pointed out, it allows people to select the other categories when using HotCat. For that to work, it would need to be restored though. If you do so, you can compare. -- User:Docu at 05:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So this is using hotcat? Would you have another example that I could just test? And I am just trying to get my head around why it would be helpful to have a category a user shouldn't use... nothing to do with Foroa. At the moment, I still think it shouldn't be undeleted. I haven't come across the hidden cats (much, besides maintenance cats) so am curious to see how it would work. And would an ordinary admin like myself be able to hide cats? And are there any downsides to using hidden cats? Thanks -- Deadstar (msg) 07:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion started about HotCat above. Try undeleting it and compare what happens when you select the category. -- User:Docu at 07:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But that means it's just an ordinary category. I don't see how that would help me. -- Deadstar (msg) 07:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As Bayo pointed out initially, it makes "people [.] use another cat when they use JavaScript categorisation". It wont really break anything, so I don't see why you wouldn't try it out for yourself. BTW I mentioned Foroa, as she deleted this category without prior discussion, clearly misusing her admin tools. -- User:Docu at 08:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<unindent> I must completely misunderstand your whole argument. I read Bayo's comment to agree with deletion. "I think it was removed to force people to use another cat when they use JavaScript categorisation" doesn't say to me "yes, please reinstate it".

In my experience, if the category does NOT exist, HotCat forces people to pick a different (existing) category. Which is as it should be, IMO, and which is what Bayo refers to (IMO). You mentioned hidden categories, but as I have little experience with them, I can't comment on whether it would be helpful to have it hidden. So all in all, I still don't think undeletion should be done. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HotCat works the other way round. Unless you (and Bayo) try it out, you can't really know. You can easily add non-existent categories to images with HotCat. I do this all the time. If it's a disambiguation only, HotCat forces you to use another category.
Even if you don't want to try, the category should be undeleted, as it was deleted out-of-process/through a misuse of admin tools. -- User:Docu at 08:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BTW: the Category:Bowls sample should work now correctly, too. There was a bug in Template:Disambig. No wonder we seemed to speak of different things. -- User:Docu at 08:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2nd update: As none seems to mention an inconvenience, I changed disambiguation categories to hidden. If there was a downside, I suppose we would eventually find out. -- User:Docu at 08:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for checking your comment. I see, now HotCat forces me to pick Bowls (something) instead of Bowls only, that works better now! I'd never seen it do that before. This certainly helps with ensuring the images get into the refined cat. So I believe that only leaves the images that are categorised by hand that could go into the disambiguation cat (I take it bots etc. that might have suffered from that bug are also fixed?). I use HotCat, but I don't know what percentage of the ordinary user would have it installed/knows about it.
Much happier now to have Vals reinstated (if others agree) as I think there might be a use for it: if it doesn't exist, people might end up re-creating it, and at least now we can disambiguate properly and stop people with HotCat/bots from categorising in it. On the other hand, my comment regarding the confusion stands for those images that are perhaps categorised by hand and still end up in the disambiguated cat: "but the fact that the picture I found sits in a category that is then disambiguated means to me that the "refined" category would likely not hold all the images around the subject." -- Deadstar (msg) 13:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, before the fix, it didn't work with any category that already had images in it (i.e. your Category:Bowls test), but it used to work with all other empty ones (e.g. Category:Vals that was empty, or any new one people would create).
Now that the bug is fixed, I think it's even less likely that images end up in the disambiguation categories.
As Category:Bowls is now hidden, users looking at, e.g. at this image currently in Category:Bowls shouldn't get confused anymore.
As for the flickr bot that filled Category:Inn, I think it's an advantage that these ended up in there, because otherwise this aspect wouldn't have been categorized at all, i.e. the "refined" category likely would not have held all images around the subject either. -- User:Docu at 14:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In relation to hidden disambiguation cats - It is a bit confusing though that if I add "Category:Bowls" by hand, it doesn't show up at the bottom. I start to doubt myself, and checking my spelling etc., it looks as though it should be there. As an inexperienced user I wouldn't know what I did wrong/how to fix it. (see this file for an example) -- Deadstar (msg) 08:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This should take care of that aspect too. BTW for your sample, you picked a rather experienced user. He probably would have known what to do. -- User:Docu at 12:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. -- Deadstar (msg) 14:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

not done Huib talk 13:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Gral Cárdenas+Dip Menéndez 010939.jpg

[edit]

This is a file I have deleted, but the following discussion left me doubting if that was the correct action. Even more, I'm currently under heavy activities in the "real world", I ge only some brief pauses to come around here, so I don't have the time to properly check a case such as complex as this (I even forgot for many days that I left this topic unresolved). I request some other admins to take a look at this.

As you can see, the uploader explains that the image can be found at the "Centro de Estudios de Historia de México" (official site), and that it was released under the GFDL by the author at this blog. Not founding links to the blog in the other site, and with it having the typical copyright notice, I thought it was a variant of Flickr washing (in this case, "blog washing"), and delete it. However, the uploader explains that the author of the blog is the son of the man in the photo, and that the CEHM is mentioned just because the authorship can be checked in there.

The user that requested deletion points correctly that, under mexican law, the copyright can't be considered expired yet. However, if as it is said the author released it under a free licence, there would be no problem, as such thing can be done anytime (a release of rights of an own photo is a legitimate action, no matter if the image was taken yesterday or 40 years ago). But that is the point that left me doubting: do we have enough information to consider this a clear case, and then undelete the file, or not?

Sorry about passing this issue to others when I took it myself and should be dealing with it, but as I said my time is limited (it wasn't 10 days ago) and I can't properly engage in long analysis or talkings for clarification. Belgrano (talk) 03:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

not done There is no proof dat the blogger is the real author of the file and therefor there is no proof that the license is okay. Huib talk 13:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

Jan Brewer photo

[edit]

Please undelete:

File:JanBrewer-04-22-2010.jpg

I took the image at an actual press conference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zpalmese (talk • contribs) 21:22, 2010 May 3 (UTC)

This should have been converted to a DR, since the {{Copyvio}} tag was contested. But I'm still reluctant restoring it, as I'm pretty sure it would be deleted again in the end. The resolution (1,024×768 pixels) and lack of EXIF metadata would be very unusual for a genuine shot. –Tryphon☂ 14:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The image also had a lot of moire patterning indicative of it being a photo of a television broadcast. It seems unlikely that a cellphone camera would produce the same kind of artifacts in an image. Shereth (talk) 14:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Not to mention it's a terrible likeness of her. Surely someone could get a decent picture of her somehow. Wknight94 talk 15:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, many eyes now including mine and speedydeletion on en.wp: photo of television broadcast. --Martin H. (talk) 01:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

Category:Uusi Suomi

[edit]

I created Category:Uusi Suomi for File:1847-10-19 Suometar 42 19 10 1847.jpg, but found that it has been deleted for allegedly being out of scope. My intention, however, is not to create a place for uploading contents from Uusi Suomi, but for pictures relating to the newspaper. The front page of an 1847 issue is one example of what fits the category (and thus far the only one so categorized); other possible examples are pictures of the office, editors, or logo. There are numerous other newspapers who have their own categories. I don't see the problem with this one. --Jonund (talk) 15:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't create Category:Uusi Suomi but the gallery page Uusi Suomi, which was presumably deleted for being an empty gallery. (All it contained was "[[Category:Newspapers of Finland]]".) Just create the category in the right place and all should be well. :) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

just recreate :) Huib talk 19:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Bifurkation.JPG

[edit]

The File was in use in an article on a medical focussed lemma on :de de:Subinzision.Nemissimo (talk) 19:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

done medical image not porn Huib talk 20:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Undelete all speedy deletion

[edit]

There is no justification for speedy deletions done today. There is no consensus at Commons, there is no new policy from WMF, just Jimbo and some administrators who follow his words instead of consensus. The only decent solution is to undelete all files that and start over.--Ankara (talk) 20:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. Killiondude (talk) 20:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! There will be plenty of time to have long discussions over what's useful and not useful once we complete the current undeletion project. At that point, we can begin to form a reasonable policy about which, if any, pornographic images should be deleted.
In the mean time, pornography has to be taken on a rational basis just like every other image. IF it's legal, educational, and useful it stays. --Alecmconroy (talk) 20:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ankara has been POV warring and putting up vandalism based on their person opinion that is not reflected by policy and is not appropriate for this community. They have been warned for their inappropriate actions already but make it clear that they want to continue to edit war and disrupt in order to make a point. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given all that's gone on, I definitely understand why you might be confused over who "speaks for the project". But your assertions are misplaced-- the user who decided to edit first and discuss second wasn't Ankara. There's been a lot of disruption today, but it's not Ankara's fault. (or yours) --Alecmconroy (talk) 21:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note to admins: Commons is currently in the midst of a special cleanup project to remove pornography. Some deletions at the borderline will be controversial, and so the best thing will be for us to all remain calm and friendly. Please don't undelete things unless there has clearly been an error, as I want to avoid wheel warring. We'll be having a much longer discussion about policy, working with the board and staff, and after that, if some things which have been deleted now need to be restored, that will be the time to do it. Please don't undelete pornography. -- Jimbo Wales
Jimbo does not have policy-making authority on Commons, and the community has not come to consensus on the applicability, if any, of the above statement. --Alecmconroy (talk) 21:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Such a thread is misplaced at COM:UDEL. Please feel free to post undeletion requests for individual cases or groups of similar images. It would be helpful to provide a rationale why we need them and/or to which extent they have been used in the projects, possibly by refering to the respective CommonsDelinker logs. Even if deletions are not undone immediately, there will be, according to Jimbo Wales, a time coming in the near future (he suggested 1 June) when we calmly reconsider selected deletions. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Franz von Bayros 016.jpg

[edit]

Art, not porn. --Millosh (talk) 21:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. However, this image is currently not deleted. Hence nothing is to be done regarding this image at COM:UDEL. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was, see log. --Dezidor (talk) 22:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Amos Content Group logo.jpg incorrectly deleted

[edit]

I received permission to upload the acg logo from Shawn Amos and it is entirely his work. The logo is also free to use by anyone. Please un-delete thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelczek (talk • contribs) 00:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Just the day before you asked here for undeletion you uploaded File:AMOS CONTENT GROUP COMPANY LOGO SMALL VERSION CREATED BY SHAWN AMOS MAY 2010.jpg which is not deleted (but uses a terrible number of large letters making the upload "ugly"). So nothing to undeleted, closed. I tagged the file as missing evidence of permission however. --Martin H. (talk) 01:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Waldem Hoven.jpg

[edit]

The file is a photograph of Waldemar Hoven, a Nazi war criminal, at the Doctors' Trial in 1947. It was taken by Hedwig Epstein who at the time was working for the US government; hence, the photograph is {{PD-USGov}}. I do not understand why it was deleted, and the admin who did so did not provide a reason (note: the phrase "In category Other speedy deletions" is not a valid reason because it does not explain why the file was judged to be a candidate for speedy deletion).

Please restore the file and direct a bot to undo the delinking from Wikipedia articles that was performed by CommonsDelinker. --Tetromino (talk) 01:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Info The image was marked for deletion because a duplicate of it on Wikipedia, en:File:WaldemarHoven.jpg, is tagged there as non-free. Having compared the deleted description page to that of the enwiki copy, and looked at the USHMM description page of this image, I'm inclined to believe that the source and license of the deleted version were indeed correct (even if the only actual evidence I've seen of Hedwig Epstein being a U.S. federal employee at the time is that biography page), and those of the enwiki version wrong, and I therefore  support undeletion of this file. A third opinion would be nice, though. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 08:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restored and reopened the deletion request; evidence certainly suggests the en.wp version is wrong, can be redeleted if a consensus for deletion emerges.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mammary intercourse with dildo.jpg

[edit]

No valid reason of deletion, abuse of power from the admin who proceded to a speedy deletion. (I start with this one but there may be many other similar cases) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK I've read Commons:Sexual content more carefully. But I still wonder about that particular image. It seems to me that it fails in none of the 5 cases. Strictly speaking it's not masturbation nor intercourse (not even simulated). At least not intercourse as the law defines it ("genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal"). Therefore I still see no reason why this particular image should be deleted. (but don't worry I won't ask the undeletion of other pictures, unless I find borderline pictures like this one) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did find some other "borderline" pictures that I think fails in none of the 5 categories defined by the law : File:Self breast licking.jpg and File:Self-kicking breasts.jpg --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an extremely low-quality amateur shot (blurred and noisy). I fail to see any educational value in this case. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IMO it illustrates female exhibitionism. What about the 2 other pictures ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That was unused low-quality COM:PORN. The other two have been oversighted. Hence, I cannot comment on these. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion - Low-resolution, out-of-focus, not really useful for anything. I am all for deleting bad images, no matter what they're of. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They are of low quality, I agree. But there were the only images illustrating what they were showing (i.e. erotic or sexual behaviour, but which aren't concerned by the law). Therefore it's useful and in the scope. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 15:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
argumentum ad ignorantiam, your lack of imagination is not a reason to delete. Erik Warmelink (talk) 16:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose undeletion. Useless. Wknight94 talk 03:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose no clear reason given for undeletion of the subject image. ++Lar: t/c 16:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I can review the other two if desired, they were hidden by Tiptoety. I have every confidence in the correctness but will review. ++Lar: t/c 16:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

not done we have enough images like this Huib talk 19:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is hypocrit : everything is being deleted right now !!! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 19:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

Several files speedy deleted already in use

[edit]

The following files have been deleted today by a speedy delete process, with them being already in use in more than 30 Wikipedia projects, and all of them already having a life-span of more than 6 months:

I understand that a policy change was decided on. Yet, all the above files are educational and in good taste - and could hardly be considered pornographic. Deletion on the grounds of dealing with sexuality, appears like an irresponsible distortion of the new policy. To quote, "Wikimedia Commons admins who wish to remove from the project all images that are of little or no educational value but which appeal solely to prurient interests have my full support." Hardly is this the case for the above. W00pzor (talk) 21:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I linked the files to make review easier. TheDJ (talk) 23:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed my own deletions, just to be sure. All were of material that would satisfy the new Jimbo rules. All material was either not in use, or only in use on user talkpages, per Global usage, because those are the only actions I made today. If anyone is of a different opinion, please say so. TheDJ (talk) 23:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's no use checking GlobalUsage after deletion. What you should've checked is the CommonsDelinker logs:
Ps. The CommonsDelinker log search is a bit tricky to use: you have to omit the "File:" prefix, capitalize the first letter and replace spaces with underscores. If you make any mistakes, you get no results. :( —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I don't remember those files being used so much. Otherwise I would not have deleted them at that time. Especially File:Caucasian_man_masturbating.jpg. TheDJ (talk) 00:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Restored that one for now, pending final foundation statement. TheDJ (talk) 00:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That being said, I expect you will take responsibility for your actions when the files are decided on being restored, and re-link in their original pages, whether by automatic or manual means. I understand you imagined acting in good faith. But, you were way too rash; sadly a trait representing of many admins these past couple of days.W00pzor (talk) 10:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Restored, including uses based on this log. –Krinkletalk 17:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to see what has been deleted: It (the drawing!) is here: http://ffffound.com/image/bd01b84a27e3fd322e39331a1c346c088eef465e --Saibo (Δ) 15:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Restored, including uses based on Delinker's logs. –Krinkletalk 17:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete - It's a low quality image. There are better ones I think, and the Wiki-drawing currently on those articles seem good. –Krinkletalk 17:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Undelete all. The "Jimbo rule" is based on COM:SCOPE. COM:SCOPE says that images that are in use are in scope. It's not up to us to make editorial decisions about image use on local wikis. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

done per above Huib talk 13:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relinked in all previous wikipedia articles:

--Saibo (Δ) 22:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Félicien Rops - Sainte-Thérèse.png

[edit]

Abuse of deletion. This was not a photograph and it's the work of a famous artist/caricaturist. It's perfectly in the scope. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 15:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concur that this was in scope, illustrating an aspect of this artist's work. William Avery (talk) 15:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

art not porn Huib talk 19:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Ashley Taking a Shower 16.jpg

[edit]

If my memory is good, it wasn't porn (maybe eroticism but not porn). Therefore speedy deletion was not appropriate. Please restore and launch a DR if one really wants to question this file. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 15:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the whole series, not just 16. I don't think we need all 20 of these. Was 16 the only one you wanted back? Why image 16 in particular? Rather than asking for an undeletion and then a DR, for images that were unused and out of scope, why not just make the case here? Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 15:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS you don't have to rely on memory if you don't want to, the whole series is on Flickr. ++Lar: t/c 15:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Something I don't understand : why wouldn't it be in the scope ? Or if you prefer, why other pictures within the Category:People in showers are in the scope and not this series ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 15:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good photograph of a woman. Just a woman in a shower. Strictly no porn. it's here. Please stop harming the project. --Saibo (Δ) 15:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which ones did you want back? And why, specifically? How exactly are all 20 of these in scope? ++Lar: t/c 15:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I concur with the deletion. Even if we wouldn't have the recent debate, we might wonder how such shots conform to COM:PEOPLE#Moral issues? In many of these cases we cannot be sure that the depicted person which can be clearly identified consented to this publication (imagine cases where ex-friends publish such photos). Independent from this, it falls clearly out of COM:SCOPE as Commons is not a repository of nude photographs of non-notable models by non-notable photographers. --AFBorchert (talk) 15:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have you ever considered that not all people are members of your sect? Erik Warmelink (talk) 17:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a question whether I like these shots or not, it is a question whether they fall into COM:SCOPE or not. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

not done we have enough images just like this one. Huib talk 19:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a valid argument, for god's sake ! Why the hell should we refuse variety of choice in subjects as nudity and not in other subjects ! What is this awful puritanism ?!!! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 21:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is a valid argument, we do have a lot images of young women suffering from a certain genetic disorder (in this case lack of melanin) when compared to young women who don't suffer from that hereditary, recessive treat. Lar's reason to delete ("not your pornsite") says more about Lar than about Dvdplr. Erik Warmelink (talk) 19:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Masturbating_hand.jpg

[edit]

Please undelete File:Masturbating_hand.jpg. It was used in what looks like 20 wikipedias ([5]) to illustrate femal masturbation, often together with the recently undeleted File:Caucasian man masturbating.jpg. A cached copy of the image can also be seen on Google Please also undo the unlink actions. — Kagee 18:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

doneHuib talk 19:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jimbo Wales started it. He had to discuss it and create regular requests. User:Jimbo Wales does not have policy-making authority on Commons and there is no policy that you write about. No reason to protect his bad behaviour. --Dezidor (talk) 22:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider this discussion closed. If you are unhappy with the undeletion, file a DR for it. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Camila Tavares making a handbra.jpg

[edit]

I´only have to ask why was this file deleted? This ocorred on this last "shotgun approach" to some content, and the justification that it was "Commons is not an amateur porn site". I ask if this file is porn, as some can see here.

What has this image of porn? Its the implied nude and handbra, or is it the feathers? Or was its filename?

Even flickr doesnt filter this image. And about scope what about Handbracategory ; and Models from Brazil category where it was this (now) empty category.

For all of the above i request that this file is undeleted. Tm (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done - This is art, not porn - Huib talk 19:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Toyslove sybian in action kobe lee.OGG

[edit]

Not that it matters much in the current climate, but this file had a deletion request without a single delete vote. I submit this is not pornographic. The model isn't even unclothed. It is a simple product demonstration video of how a Sybian works. Yes it's commercial in nature but as a society we're so jaded to infomercials I don't think anyone is actually offended by it's commercial nature. -Nard the Bard 22:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

strong  Support for undelete. deleted in clear violation of community consensus. Then again, the commons have been enclosed. Erik Warmelink (talk) 00:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the information of the non-admins who might want to express an opinion here: The video features a fully clothed woman who is explaining the operation of a large electric sex toy in a very straight-forward, almost sterile manner (she doesn't _use_ the contraption). If the "operative attachment" weren't flesh colored and I were to watch the video without sound you might have managed to convince me that it was an over-turned industrial paint mixer. I suppose we might not decide to keep it on the basis of it being a product marketing spiel, though we have other product marketing things— they are handy as source material if nothing else. I can't see any reason to delete it for being sexually explicit, however. --Gmaxwell (talk) 01:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Support Abuse of power to delete, no consensus.This is a disaster and you treat us ordinary users very bad. Instead of creating an encyclopedia, we are forced to spend time here to ask you to be kind enough to recreate the materials used in the encyclopedia. It is not the up to individual administrator's determine whether a photo, use in a project has a value, or if there are enough photos. It is only arbitrary and people thought.--Ankara (talk) 07:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong  Support. Clear abuse. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted. Deleted without community support, and inspite of a vote of support. Yann (talk) 12:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Horny (nude by Peter Klashorst).jpg

[edit]

File:Horny (nude by Peter Klashorst).jpg google was deleted without discussion. It was in use in several projects.

  • Last DR was: "Kept. work by a notable artist, therefore within scope Abigor talk 05:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)".

Please undelete. --Saibo (Δ) 19:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose undelete, at least until a content rating system is in place. Wknight94 talk 19:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Support undelete; commons is international. Erik Warmelink (talk) 20:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted. A work of art by notable artist en:Peter Klashorst. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Youri_Gagarin_monument_1.jpg & File:Youri Gagarin monument 2.jpg

[edit]

This images (especially this) don't violate Russian law, because monument is not the main subject of photo according to similar this legal case in Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. -- TarzanASG +1  18:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping in mind the names of the files, what would you say was their main subject? —LX (talk, contribs) 19:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I said about Russian law: Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Russia. I think that the main subject of photo is city and nature, but not monument. -- TarzanASG +1  19:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what the names suggest, is it? The names suggest that the subject of the photo is the Yuri Gagarin monument. I also think that if you showed Youri Gagarin monument to a randomly chosen person and asked them to describe what they see, they're going to say "a monument," not "a city with very nice lamp posts." —LX (talk, contribs) 20:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I say about legal terminology, and not about people's language. -- TarzanASG +1  20:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to COM:FOP#Russia, the statute does not contain a definition of main subject as a legal term. In such cases, words and phrases are typically understood to maintain their everyday meaning. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can offer a suitable name, and I will rename these photos :) Сергей Родовниченко (talk) 20:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The names accurately reflected the subject of the photos. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree. with LX. The monument is the main subject, even if its below 50% of the image content & It still will be if u rename it to File:a city with very nice lamp posts.jpg --DieBuche (talk) 09:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep deleted. The number of pixels the monument occupies in the image is simply irrelevant. Not only is the monument central in the composition, with its central placement and stark contrast against the sky, but the image doesn't appear to illustrate anything useful without it, other than "here's some stuff in a Russian city." So even if the statue were de minimis, the image would be out of scope. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept deleted The main purpose of the images was to show the monument, and that is not covered by FOP Russia. -- Avi (talk) 17:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Ejaculation.ogg

[edit]

The file was kept two times in deletion requests but deleted without any discussion or request now. Undelete it. Probably abuse of admin rights. --Dezidor (talk) 19:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Policy makes it clear that such images are unacceptable, and deletion "votes" not based on policy don't count. Any admin restoring it is wheel warring and could be desysopped. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which policy? --Dezidor (talk) 20:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such policy. --Alecmconroy (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, most of our policies. The scope of Commons is for educational content that is appropriate and within use. The current policy put up by the WMF is clarifying what that means, but it has already been stated that our current policies are enough to justify the mass deleting of the pornography. Your actions above are to make a point and are not within our policies here. Just because you disagree does not give you the right to disrupt. We are not your personal porn host nor can you force us to become such. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Ejaculation.ogg: In scope, sort of educational. User:Gérard Janot wanted to delete it and he made correct request. Jimbo Wales behaved like vandal without request and consenus. --Dezidor (talk) 20:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clear support for restore. There are no plans for a "content rating system". In-use images are not out of scope. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Lolimanga.JPG

[edit]

Three reasons for deletion have been mentioned:

  1. The image is child pornography
  2. The image is out of project scope
  3. The image is a derivative of a copyrighted work

Since I can't see the image, I can't judge the third point, but the first and second are clearly wrong:

  1. The image is of Lolicon, the distinguishing element of which is that it is drawn. No actual children are portrayed, and so it cannot be child pornography.
  2. The image was in use on the English Wikipedia (and presumably elsewhere), and so is clearly within Commons:Project scope.

--Carnildo (talk) 21:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Support Undelete If you google image search "Lolimanga.JPG" you'll see google's thumbnail for the image on wikipedia/commons. It's a picture of the spines of several lolicon books on a bookshelf. The deletion stated it was not "de minimis" which I disagree, since any actual drawings/artwork is very small in the photograph (only what is visible on the spine of a book on a bookshelf) and the rest is just typeface which is not copyright-able. As for depictions that could be considered pornographic, I think that's a stretch since it's just a series of book spines on a bookshelf. Seems overreaching by the deleting admin. — raeky (talk | edits) 22:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've deleted this. Please consider Infrogmation's comment at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lolimanga.JPG. I consider this image plain illegal according to US law and most other legislations. And please keep in mind that you fail to see the problem on a thumbnail. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which law makes it illegal, please be specific. — raeky (talk | edits) 22:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From: The United States Supreme Court's ruling in Free Speech Coalition V. Ashcroft has been generally misunderstood as permitting virtual, or cartoon, child pornography. However, that ruling actually said that images that did not involve the use of real minors in their production could not be prosecuted as "child pornography." The court very explicitly stated that those types of images could, however, be prosecuted as obscenity under the Miller standard. Congress has since enacted 18 U.S.C. 1466A, which specifically criminalizes the possession and distribution of virtual and comic images of apparent children if they are engaged in sexually explicit conduct that is "obscene" under the Miller standard, as directly suggested in the Ashcroft ruling.[1]
Since you can view the full page, and have stated you understand the legal applications of cartoon pornography, is any of the images, even zoomed in, qualify as "obscene" by the Miller standard? — raeky (talk | edits) 22:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
File:Lolimanga.JPG is derivative work. --Dezidor (talk) 23:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How so, it's a zoomed out shot of multiple book spines... any copyrighted artwork would occupy only a small part of the image as a whole, and the subject is not about any individual piece... It's not a clear cut derivative work, and it wasn't deleted as such. It would most likely qualify under de minimis. If it was a zoomed in shot of any of the artwork then you'd have an argument for derivative work. But a zoomed out shot of a bookshelf, is grasping at straws here. — raeky (talk | edits) 23:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose. It's a derivative work. The use is minor and transformative, and so there is an excellent case for fair use, but the artwork on the spines is still recognizable. I don't think we can call this de minimis because you care what artwork is shown, i.e. the fact that these particular books are shown is important as opposed to some random bookshelf. Move it to enwiki, etc. Dragons flight (talk) 01:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Uncertain There's no question that the image is not child pornography according to the standards of United States law (as well as that of the source country, obviously, since it was taken in a commercial bookstore there). There is also no question that the photo is in scope, as an illustration of lolicon manga. The question of derivative work hinges on whether the spines are or are not de minimis in this image. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would not call it de minimis and I would say it is a derivative work. The main focus is on the lolicon spins and collection there, so it is the main focus on the picture.  Oppose. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 07:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While it is in scope, if it is a derivative work of a copyrighted file, then it should not be restored. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 07:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References for File:Lolimanga.JPG

[edit]
  1. ↑ http://www.sexlaws.org/18usc_1466a

Not restored. Reason for deletion was invalid, but it's a non-free derivative work. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Wiki-fisting.png File:Wiki-pegging.png

[edit]

Graphical illustrations! In scope (in use!) - apparently disliked by our censor protecting the innocent²³ American teenagers.

--Saibo (Δ) 22:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Support undelete: in use. Erik Warmelink (talk) 00:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong  Support for undelete because the two images are clearly permitted by Commons policy. First, COM:PORN states: "illustrations such as drawings may be kept"; the two files in question are drawings. Second, Commons:Sexual content at the time of writing prohibits only "photographs and film matching the definition of pornography", while "artistic depictions of sexual content" and "images that are actually in use to illustrate an article on one of the wikipedias" are explicitly permitted in Commons. The files in question are not photographs, they are artistic, and they were being used to illustrate articles until CommonsDelinker delinked them. --Tetromino (talk) 01:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Support I can't even imagine how much effort en:User:Seedfeeder spent on his educational illustrations for Wikipedia articles. Many of them had been created after an explicit request of the editors. Certainly, he don't deserve such disgrace as deletion of his work without discussion, without even a notification, with all these lazy nonsense reasoning ("Out of project scope: cleanup project"). Trycatch (talk) 02:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, this UDR is representative for all similar File:wiki-*.png files from this user. I cannot easily list them - but I am sure the undeleting admin will. Good night all! --Saibo (Δ) 02:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Info You can see a list of Seedfeeder's uploads at their upload log. At the moment, four appear to be deleted, including the ones listed above as well as File:Semfac01.png and File:Wiki-facial.png. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 08:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose undeletion of File:Semfac01.png. I am not agaist images with sexual content but this image pictures enormous perversion. It should be deleted in proper way but it will be better to keep it deleted. --Dezidor (talk) 09:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Support undeletion of File:Wiki-fisting.png, File:Wiki-pegging.png and File:Wiki-facial.png. --Dezidor (talk) 09:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's an... interesting position to take. AFAICT, the only substantial difference between File:Semfac01.png and File:Wiki-facial.png is the skin color of the depicted persons. (Oh, and that in Wiki-facial.png it's the woman who's holding the man's penis in her hand.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Support undelete per Commons:Project scope:
"The aim of Wikimedia Commons is to provide a media file repository ... that acts as a common repository for the various projects of the Wikimedia Foundation."
"[A] lawfully-hosted file, which falls within Commons' definitions of scope, will not be deleted solely on the grounds that it may not be 'child-friendly' or that it may cause offense to you or others, for moral, personal, religious, social, or other reasons."
I agree with Trycatch that the manner in which the files were deleted is essentially a slap in the face to the artist who spent countless hours producing these high-quality illustrations and was generous enough to release it under a Commons-compatible license. Black Falcon (talk) 07:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Support undelete. These images were created for Wikipedia, specifically to add as illustrations to articles that have no other similar illustration. That's as in-scope as you can get. As noted, there is no legal requirement to document the (fictional) subjects of illustrations containing sexual content. Dcoetzee (talk) 07:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Support undelete - removal of illustrations specifically tailored for Wikipedia is nonsense --Duplode (talk) 07:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Abuse of power to delete, no consensus.This is a disaster and you treat us ordinary users very bad. Instead of creating an encyclopedia, we are forced to spend time here to ask you to be kind enough to recreate the materials used in the encyclopedia. It is not the up to individual administrator's determine whether a photo, use in a project has a value, or if there are enough photos. It is only arbitrary and people thought.--Ankara (talk) 07:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to have already been undeleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

Image:Sexuality pearl necklace small.png

[edit]

Image was in use on EN prior to deletion by Jimbo. Has survived 4 previous DR attempts:

I'd say community consensus appears to favour the image remaining. Tabercil (talk) 13:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try google (switch SafeSearch off). Tabercil (talk) 17:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted - in scope as in use, consensus appears to be undelete. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Female-masturbation-electric-massager.ogv

[edit]

File:Female-masturbation-electric-massager.ogv was deleted without discussion. It was in use in an en.wikipedia article. Please undelete. --Saibo (Δ) 19:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose undelete. Given blog source is unlikely the actual source. Wknight94 talk 19:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please note: I cannot see the source - it's deleted. Seems that there is a copyright problem with this file. Close this request please. --Saibo (Δ) 20:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Claimed source is [6]. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The video itself actually ends with a screen saying "Licensed under Creative Commons BY-SA 3.0 and GNU FDL 1.2 / Age of the model is at least 18 / Copyright holder and record keeper http://eroca.blog105.fc2.com/". So if this is a copyvio, someone has at least spent an unusual amount of effort making it look legitimate. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Support undelete; commons is international. Erik Warmelink (talk) 22:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See above for why "in use" is not an appropriate argument. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See above for why "in use" is not an appropriate argument. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support in use; Ottava Rima is not Justice Potter Stewart to unilaterally decide whether something is appropriate. Free material that is in use on Wikipedia should be on Commons.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is up to the person saying it is "in use" to verify that it was legitimately put on a page, was not overcrowding, matches the page in use, and was essential to understanding the page. You can see an instance where people thought an image was in use and it turned out it was all vandal placed. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We aren't here to keep stuff just because some vandal put it on a page. But we're here to support the Wikipedias and other Wikimedia projects, not second-guess them. Whether or not it's overcrowding or essential to understanding the page or even matches the page in use is up to the project in question not us. We destroy the trust essential to our role when we play back-seat driver to the projects we are supposed to support.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If what you say was absolutely true, then we wouldn't have bots checking licensing or the rest. We have standards that need to be upheld regardless of what a tiny minority on a few obscure projects wish. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Licensing is a red herring. COM:SCOPE says "A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose". I don't know how you claim that the English Wikipedia is a "obscure project", but the second line of COM:SCOPE says that Commons "acts as a common repository for the various projects of the Wikimedia Foundation", so our job is not to hold ourselves above those who Commons was designed to serve.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The English Wikipedia as a whole did not determine its "need". One tiny group on it did. The page, Sex Toys, already has 7 images on it. There is already image overcrowding. There is no legitimate way to claim that it is needed or falls within "in use". Ottava Rima (talk) 01:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to edit Wikipedia, go edit Wikipedia. It's not your job to judge for another project how many images they need on a page. [7] is a good example of why this behavior is wrong; it's driving away users who would otherwise be contributing content.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much what Prosfilaes said - we do not determine whether a project needs an image or not, we do not oversee all images to make sure they are being used to our satisfaction. We ask whether an image has sufficient permissions and whether it's in scope, as defined by COM:SCOPE, which says that an image used on another project is automatically in scope unless it is only used on user pages. This satisfies both conditions, and so should be undeleted. If you want to quote policy, then read the sodding policy first. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"It's not your job to judge for another project how many images they need on a page" Actually, it is Common's job. We are not supposed to provide unlimit amounts of pictures. There is such a thing as excessive. We have a strongly defined scope that set boundaries based on reason, and you are effectively saying there are no boundaries. If a project wants more images, they can easily upload it on their project. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
COM:SCOPE says "A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose". That's our boundaries. It is a violation of the boundaries set for us to delete a file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation so long as we have the appropriate permissions.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As pointed out, in use does not mean someone randomly threw it up. It means that it is necessary to the page itself. You cannot fill a random page with 400 images and expect that is enough to justify them. Furthermore, the page is sex toys, not sex toys being used, nor are we an instruction on how to use sex toys so an image is not for that purpose (read the full scope). There are already 7 images and the page is already cluttered and off topic. There are multiple vibrators already. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No Ottava. No. In use means some project is using it on one of their article or talk pages. That is what it means, that is ALL it means. We are not here to cast editorial judgement over other projects. If you want this to stay deleted, fine, but come up with some reason in policy, do not just keep repeating the same argument ad nauseam after you have been totally discredited. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't believe me read this. There is a matter at the bottom where a vandal put images into a page inappropriately. You need to justify the image, not just throw it up there. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restored per consensus. Legitimate use in en:Sex toy. Dcoetzee (talk) 03:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Three_Lesbians_with_Salami_no_watermark.jpg

[edit]

File:Three_Lesbians_with_Salami_no_watermark.jpg not in google (switch SafeSearch off) was deleted without discussion. It was in use. Please undelete. --Saibo (Δ) 20:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! I saw the page where that came from! A porno photo from the 1930s, showing a black man on top of a white man with a Hitler mustache giving the Nazi salute! I had no idea that people back then had the balls to press their objections so forcefully. Perhaps when Wikipedia has retired to pick through its archives for stuff to burn, sites like VintageNudePhotos will take over teaching history for us. Wnt (talk) 17:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept deleted No evidence that image is in the public domain, no obvious educational use, commons is not censored, but not a free porn hosting service either. -- Avi (talk) 12:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bead.svg

[edit]

File:Bead.svg in google (switch SafeSearch off) was deleted without discussion. It was in use. Please undelete. --Saibo (Δ) 20:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose, as is a file in use for some operational reason such as within a template or the like. Such a file is not liable to deletion simply because it may be of poor quality: if it is in use, that is enough. An otherwise non-educational file does not acquire educational purpose solely because it is in use on a user page (the "User:" namespace) of another project, but by custom the uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user page of another project is allowed" See Commons:Project_scope#File_in_use_in_another_Wikimedia_project. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 19:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clear consensus to restore. Ottava's claim is unsupported. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. Actually being a notable author does affect how your works are treated.

Silvana Suárez

[edit]

Undeletion of:

Silvana Suárez is a famouse model and Miss World winners. Useful to show her career and as examples of model images from the 1970s and 1980s. No consensus to delete.--Ankara (talk) 01:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Support undeletion. These are images of a person who has an article - obviously they could be used to illustrate that article. The deletion as "out of scope" is absurd. I'm amazed that these images are in the public domain - free images of models from the 1970s and 1980s are very hard to come by, which makes these extremely valuable. Dcoetzee (talk) 05:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Support undeletion. Clearly within scope. (@Dcoetzee: template:PD-AR-Photo). Erik Warmelink (talk) 06:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Support undeletion. I agree with Ankara and Dcoetzee. Jacopo Werther (talk) 15:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Articles are mostly stubs and there is no reason to have more than 3 or 4 images. Image clutter is not an excuse to claim "encyclopedic". Ottava Rima (talk) 16:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • If nothing else, En should be able to select among multiple images for the lead image to use on her article. If they want, they should be able to create a gallery. They're also among the only free images we have of commercial model photography from the 1970s and 1980s, which could be valuable in discussing history of a variety of topics. Commons does not make editorial decisions about image selection or use. If some of them were relatively low quality compared to the others, that might be different, but that's not the case here. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ottava has totally failed to grasp Common's scope. These images were produced as part of the subject's career. These images are useful in any attempt to cover this subject comprehensively. We do not dictate the editorial decisions of local Wikipedias from Commons, these images, even if not all used in articles, would form a useful supplementary material. The last file you uploaded, File:Ode to a Nightingale holograph.jpg is not in use on any article, let's delete that too shall we. Only, we don't. - hahnchen 22:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That image was uploaded to be added to an article in a spot that clearly would use it. Ode to a Nightingale the poem is not overcrowded with images. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Again, why was it deleted?? And I do wish to echo Dcoetzee's comment that it's surprising they are PD. Can someone confirm that license is indeed valid?? Tabercil (talk) 17:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Argentine law (see also template:PD-AR-Photo).--Ankara (talk) 17:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Who says these articles are going to stay stubs forever? Or is the uploader supposed to sit around the phone waiting for a call from Ottava that the article's gotten long enough, time to upload #1, and then in a year or two you'll call back and say OK, #2 is alright...? Or maybe you think her article is just non-notable and we should debate that here and then let en.wikipedia know what we've decided? A public domain photo of a Miss World is obviously in scope - it might even find use in some general article like "sexual attractiveness". Wnt (talk) 17:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is already one very large image on the page. 7 addition images would be completely unnecessary. Even with the largest pages, more than one per section would be excessive, and images are supposed to adequately represent the section, so only one or two of the above could ever find appropriate use. Seven is flat out far too many. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Support - As above. - hahnchen 22:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Support My personal rule of thumb is that if there's an article on a person, we should be happy to support at least a dozen photos of them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted. Clear support. @Ottava: style conventions in one local wiki do not dictate inclusion policy on Commons. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Susana Giménez_,_by Annemarie Heinrich.jpg

[edit]

After Pieter Kuiper was blocked, the tagger has seen a third or even a fourth chance, see also Troll Alarm 3. 92.226.248.95 14:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Support undeletion; source was given as here; that is why I had removed the no-source tag. There is no copyright problem. The image was in use on en:Susana Giménez, es:Susana Giménez, and es:Annemarie Heinrich. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restored as the speedy deletion appears to have been accidental. Source link and license appear correct to me. We shall open a regular DR if there is any remaining doubt. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please keep an eye on me. If you do, you might notice a banned user editing my user talk page. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Azflag.jpg

[edit]

Sandstein speedy deleted File:Azflag.jpg as "out of the project scope" and to enforce an en.wp arbitration decision (w:WP:ARBPIA). The image is not so clearly out of the scope of the project to be speedied and an en.wp arbitration decision does not entitle commons admins from summarily deleting images here. Request the image be restored and if Sandstein feels it is out of the scope of the project to request deletion. Nableezy (talk) 06:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion is unconventional but I would support any deletion request. The project scope requires that files are "realistically useful for an educational purpose". I consider it very unlikely that this or similar images would be. I do note that the project scope does go on to say that "the uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user page of another project is allowed". However, images like this seem only good for expressing a user's ideological beliefs and I don't feel that users should be using their userpage to do so since it often distracts from the work of the relevant project. I would like to see users spend less time trying to use their userpages to express their ideological beliefs and more time making useful contributions. I won't restore this image but I do recognise that there could be some merit to doing so. Adambro (talk) 10:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I actually did not have this on my user page on any other project. Nableezy (talk) 14:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apart from being of low technical quality (low resolution JPG is unsuited for vector content), the image was unused except on the en.wp userpage of its uploader, who is now under en.wp arbitration rules forbidden to use this and similar images (see here). There is a functionally equivalent SVG file, File:No Israel.svg, that appears to be widely used crosswiki, and to which this image is redundant. Under these circumstances, while I don't really object to a restoration or a full deletion discussion if people here want it, I believe that doing either would serve no useful purpose. Sandstein (talk) 14:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done --O (谈 • висчвын) 17:50, 11 May 2010 (GMT)


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

File:Spanking_on_Bondage_Furniture.png

[edit]

Please undelete File:Spanking_on_Bondage_Furniture.png. It was used in three articles in en.wiki and undo the unlink actions. --Saibo (Δ) 15:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly support this suggestion. The deletion is highly questionable.Nemissimo (talk) 16:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Support undeletion. Erik Warmelink (talk) 17:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support undeletion. Even if we construct a specific set of rules for forms of porn to be deleted, it will almost certainly need to focus on areas of the body shown. Specifically targeting BDSM images to the exclusion of other fetishes and paraphilias is a bad idea. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support undeletion. Abuse of power, no consensus or deletion request. --Dezidor (talk) 19:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Which policy? --Dezidor (talk) 21:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most of our policies given to us by the WMF, we are not a hosting gallery for uneducational material, including porn. There are plenty of other places for you to upload your porn. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My porn? Are you serious? That material was educational and it was used in articles. ---> Claim "out of scope" is obviously invalid. --Dezidor (talk) 21:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clear consensus to restore. Legitimately used in en:Erotic_furniture, en:Male_dominance_(BDSM), en:Erotic_spanking, en:Spanking. There are no plans for a "content rating system". Dcoetzee (talk) 20:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Submerged ejaculation.ogv

[edit]

Please undelete File:Submerged ejaculation.ogv. It's a interesting technical movie of w:Ejaculation. This is porn? Are you kidding? This isn't porn and in scope. --Saibo (Δ) 15:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may want to review your approach in these discussions. Stating your case is good, but "are you kidding" may not be as helpful as calmly stating the reasoning for undeletion. ++Lar: t/c 16:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Changed - satisfied now? ... I'm sad, sorry. --Saibo (Δ) 16:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, "kidding" was translated incorrectly by me. I rather meant joking. --Saibo (Δ) 17:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Lar, interesting how you assume to know what saibo would want. Plaase speak English if you want to threaten. BTW,  Support undeletion.
I think this should be decision of local projects. Commons should offer alternatives and not to force them to choose on of them. --Dezidor (talk) 22:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One week ago, I would have agreed with you. This is, however, no longer the case, see Commons:Sexual content. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Commons:Sexual content is not rule but poorly written proposal. --Dezidor (talk) 22:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AFBorchert, have you noticed that it is in fact a movie and not a photograph (@"blurred")? Point me to the replacements, please. I won't look at Commons:Sexual content - i am sure it is vandalized by one specific person. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 22:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. Established uses in sv:sädesuttömning, sv:utlösning, sv:ejakulation, sr:Ејакулација, my:သုတ်ပန်းခြင်း, pt:Ejaculação, bs:Ejakulacija, sh:Ejakulacija, bg:Еякулация, fi:Siemensyöksy, en:eyaculación, ru:Эякуляция, tl:Pagpapalabas, tl:Tamod, it:eiaculazione, sv:Ejakulation, da:Udløsning. There are no plans for a content rating system. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Cum_on_face_on_Second_Life.jpg

[edit]

Again another abuse of power from Jimbo Wales ! The law specifies "photographs and films" : illustrations are NOT concerned, and there is no valid reason to establish such a censorship on Commons. Or it means that we decide NOT to be able to illustrate ANY subject treating about sexuality (which are subjects covered by Wikipedia and therefore within the scope). There are many other cases like that which have been deleted by Jimbo Wales or other admins. There is no reason to procede speedy deletions for such files. This mass deletion affair is becoming a scandalous nonsense ! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 21:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to have only been on your user page. Is there any real prospect for this to have educational use? I'm not happy with Jimbo's approach, but this image really does seem to be something that is out of project scope. Dragons flight (talk) 22:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Support undelete. No consensus, once deleted only members of the inner party can judge the pospects to have educational use. But, for what it is worth, it is an image deleted by the founder outside of policy, which may make it noteworthy. Erik Warmelink (talk) 00:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support undelete. Sexual acts in Second Life, including prostitution, are an intriguing sociological topic that has been studied in scholarly papers. This is in scope as an illustration of those acts, and currently has no substitute on Commons. Dcoetzee (talk) 07:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose undelete. I am opposing graphic pictures in general until there is at least a rating system, but this is also low-quality and useless. Out of scope. Wknight94 talk 11:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you can, please either identify where this image was previously used for an educational purpose on a Wikimedia project or otherwise identify articles which we could reasonably expect this image to contribute to. Thanks. --Gmaxwell (talk) 16:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that it was used or not isn't the question. We don't use all the pictures for the Eiffel Tower, or for god's no what, and we don't question the fact that they're all used or not ! So if we want to respect the main principles of Wikimedia (including neutrality), it has to be the same logic for any subject of knowledge, including facial ejaculation. Why would we need only one illustration for that ? There's no logic in that ! It's even more needed now that photos are forbidden for such subjects : the possible number of illustrations for such subjects has been reduced, therefore drawings or such illustrations are even more useful than they used to be ! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 19:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not suggesting the lack of such evidence is a reason for deletion, but only that presence of such evidence would help support an undeletion so it would be useful to have. --Gmaxwell (talk) 19:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do not ignore the indentation. Erik Warmelink (talk) 20:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There is for example en:Criticism_of_Second_Life#Sex. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment, isn't Second Life copyrighted software? This probably constitutes a derivative work violation. Blurpeace 05:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would depend who designed the models used in the interaction. A lot of Second Life content is user-generated. I don't think we have that information. It doesn't feature a heads-up display or anything that obviously contains graphical elements designed by Linden Lab. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Not allowable under policy. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose on grounds of derivative work of a copyrighted game. User created content often has to waive rights away. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment It's not a photo, isn't it ? So it's not concerned by the law. If you want to question it, restore it and launch a DR. But a speedy deletion was an abuse of power ! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 06:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Having illustrations for topics about sexuality is one thing. Hosting screenshots of non-notable indivudales playing at second live is another thing. Hosting a small number of selected quality screenshots might be usefull to illustrate en:Category:Second Life articles, but illustrating that game not needs a large amount of explicite images. Especialy not this one which is (1) a screenshot from a game and not usefull to illustrate real-life sexuality (2) of low quality and importance and not usefull to illustrate any second life topic. So oppose, this file is not usefull, low quality trash and not usefull to illustrate and hosted to potentially illustrate something that not needs (or shouldn't have much) explicite illustration. --Martin H. (talk) 12:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    not usefull to illustrate real-life sexuality > since we now don't have so much choice to illustrate such subjects, it IS useful.
    not usefull to illustrate any second life topic > not even sexuality on Second Life ! Come on, try to be objective ! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 15:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Per Martin H. He puts it well. This really is not something that is educationally useful. --Herby talk thyme 12:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per Martin H. — Dferg (talk) 14:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Derivative work. If this is for showing the "computer art" topic, then you can find other images (done with free software, and with topics that won't, ah, distract from the topic at hand). If this is to show the "ejaculation in face" topic, then I doubt that it shows it better than any drawing or photo. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept deleted Unclear copyright situation, unnecessary to illustrate either Second life or the sexual result described, unlikely to have any future educational benefit, and therefore out of scope of the commons. -- Avi (talk) 17:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Hodensack_(5).JPG

[edit]

Please undelete File:Hodensack_(5).JPG which was deleted without discussion! A clearly non pornographic (guess - it's deleted ...) photograph of a de:Hodensack formerly used to depict de:Hodensackinfusion. Stop deleting useful images. That's vandalism. It was in use in an article in the German wikipedia. --Saibo (Δ) 02:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Support undelete. In use in a rather educational article, deleted outside process. Erik Warmelink (talk) 03:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Support No consensus to delete.--Ankara (talk) 07:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Info there is no need for a content rating system. It is just a part of the human body. --Saibo (Δ) 13:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See above, used does not mean what you think it means. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - in use means in scope. Also  Comment that it has been uploaded to de.wp with the notice "do not transfer to commons", and further  Comment damn. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See above, used does not mean what you think it means. Merely appearing on a page is not enough, as a vandal could put any image on any page. There are set requirements. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. @Ottava: this was the only image in de:Hodensackinfusion and the only image we have depicting that particular topic. Dcoetzee (talk) 03:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Woman Posing in Abandoned Site.png

[edit]

To the ones that want to see this image, i accessed it by google cache, and it linked to this flickr image

I´only have to ask why was this file deleted? This occurred on this last "shotgun approach" to some content seen as pornographic, and with the justification that it was "Out of scope". I ask if was out of scope, what was making in the categories women and with graffitis, not to speak of the possible categorization to lingerie, people with guitars and, most importantly urban decay, and\or subcategorie of photography, dedicated to photos using as subject people on urban decayed settings and its use for several different artistic approaches (see this site for a example). To last, even flickr doesnt filter this image. For all of the above i request that this file is undeleted. Tm (talk) 03:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring and sending to deletion review at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Woman Posing in Abandoned Site.png. This image will probably end up getting deleted, but I think this will make everyone happy. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Female masturbation.svg, File:Cumfac-01.svg & File:Cumfac 01.png

[edit]

Just graphical illustrations, in scope & were in use before CommonsDelinker did its job.

First, COM:PORN states: "illustrations such as drawings may be kept"; the two files in question are drawings. Second, Commons:Sexual content at the time of writing prohibits only "photographs and film matching the definition of pornography", while "artistic depictions of sexual content" and "images that are actually in use to illustrate an article on one of the wikipedias" are explicitly permitted in Commons. The files in question are not photographs, they are artistic, and they were being used to illustrate articles until CommonsDelinker delinked them.

I believe this is a valid reason for them to be undeleted. odder (talk) 09:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See above for why "in use" is not an appropriate argument. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is. The rules are clear. And the link is righ there to read. What you say is not. I'd like to know how would you wish to depict an article about sex. With angels flying?Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 15:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The scope does not mean what you think it does. That could be chalked up to a language barrier, perhaps. In use does not mean "appears on a page". It means that it adds encyclopedic value to a page. That means that it is absolutely necessary and apt for the section it is illustrating. It means that images that aren't part of the topic, don't belong there, or are part of clutter, shouldn't be on Commons. Furthermore, if your interpretation was even close to being correct, then we would have no ability to remove things based on poor licensing, because any "use" would be enough to justify even copyright infringing images. Your statement does not follow anything within the scope or policy. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So your argument is that someone with an advanced level of english cannot understand "A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose". OK, I'm British, I'm a native english speaker, I can say that it means that if a wikimedia project uses the image then it is within scope. To me, it seems that you are the one who is failing to understand policy. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See above for why "in use" is not an appropriate argument. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments against this image seem to be on "I agree with Jimmy" grounds and "out of scope". COM:SCOPE, which defines the scope of this project, states:

A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose, as is a file in use for some operational reason such as within a template or the like. Such a file is not liable to deletion simply because it may be of poor quality: if it is in use, that is enough.

An otherwise non-educational file does not acquire educational purpose solely because it is in use on a user page (the "User:" namespace) of another project, but by custom the uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user page of another project is allowed.

The first of the images in question was not in use on just user pages, it was in use on encylopaedic articles (delinker log). Thus it is within scope, and arguments which say otherwise may be discounted. (NOTADEMOCRACY et al). As for the second and third images, they were not in use, however judging by the fact that multiple projects use similar images, I would argue that these also fall into scope. Hence, as these images do not fall foul of COM:PORN due to being illustrations, they are hereby undeleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Carving_knives_2.JPG

[edit]

File:Carving_knives_2.JPG in google (switch SafeSearch off) was deleted without discussion. It was in use. Please undelete. --Saibo (Δ) 01:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Support undelete. The "Jimbo rule" is based on COM:SCOPE. COM:SCOPE says that images that are in use are in scope. This is probably not the best illustration of BDSM (I'm not sure if this is real knifeplay), but it's not up to us to make editorial decisions about image use on local wikis. (see new vote below) Dcoetzee (talk) 21:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support undelete  Neutral. In (questionable) use, still no reason for a speedy delete. Erik Warmelink (talk) 06:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Clearly not encyclopedic or could ever be construed within our scope or policies. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no way to claim that it is "used" in wikis appropriately. There is no article on "knives in sexual orifices" nor would one be reasonable. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    en:argumentum ad ignorantiam. Erik Warmelink (talk) 17:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose undeleting. Unencylopedic. Obelix (talk) 14:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC) Support. Obelix (talk) 16:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Used in 3 Wikis. It is not up to Commons to make editorial choices regarding which images should be used by local wikis.--Ankara (talk) 14:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I should mention that you don't even need to turn Google's SafeSearch off to see this image, either in the English or in the German site. The three articles suggest an educational use, and certainly to me the picture looks somewhat educational — I mean, without the picture, how do you know whether somebody can do that? You want to try it yourself? And now I keep whistling "Three Blind Mice"... Wnt (talk) 17:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I want to oppose the "it is validly in use" claim. The image was included in 3 articles by the same user, just because Wikipedia projects do not have a frequent review of their articles the opinion and editorial decisions of this particular user, User:Emptybone, does not make the image illustrative, good quality, reviewed or validly used or even usefull for educational purposes. Furthermore User:Emptybone is a spam account of User:Creator (the uploader here) who tries to flood images of his penis in articles such as en:Loin where images of his penis are not needed and not expected by unaware readers. It is not my nature normaly, but in the case of en:Loin I reverted him as it is clearly not required to show a penis in focus of the image to illustrate a loin - also in 3-4 other languages versions of the loin article where he tried to include his penis picture. The same here with an image with knifes inserted into his ass. So summarizing: This was uploaded by a spam/single purpose account, the image is not usefull to illustrate BDSM but added by the spammer for the puropse of self-exposure - thats not editorial decision but vandalism, Commons not supports this kind of behaviour.  Keep deleted and delete the rest of the vandals images, review the inclusions in articles and revert him. --Martin H. (talk) 19:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per Martin H. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per Martin H. I was not aware that this image was added by a single user against consensus for the purpose of self-promotion. I was already suspicious that it was not a legitimate depiction of any type of BDSM. Unless someone can come up with an article this could legitimately depict let's keep it deleted. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per Martin H. and Dcoetzee TheDJ (talk) 00:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Martin H. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Franz_von_Bayros_006.jpg

[edit]

File:Franz_von_Bayros_006.jpg in google (switch SafeSearch off) was deleted without discussion. It was in use. This is art by de:Franz von Bayros. Please undelete. --Saibo (Δ) 17:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • We are not a gallery of every work of art made by every artist. Image clutter is the opposite of useful. For an artist's page, maybe 3 or 4 images of their work are useful when they display different techniques and styles. That is it, and I have worked on many artist's encyclopedic articles. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Imagine Rembrandthuis in Amsterdam, throwing 254 out of 260 of Rembrandt´s etchings in the garbage bin "we only need four etchings, the other has no value so we threw them away". Commons is a complement in which the interested can see more paintings.
  • Actually Ottava, we are a gallery. There is no mandate that an image must be included in a Wikipedia article for it to be in Commons. The output of an artists' career is useful supplementary material, that if free, Wikimedia Commons accepts. However sexy you may find it, is irrelevant. You mention "image clutter", what does that even have to do with Commons? We don't dictate Wikipedia editorial policy from the Commons - it's their decision to make. - hahnchen 19:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Actually Ottava, we are a gallery" There is nothing in policy stating that we must host all the content, or that an "encyclopedia" page by definition can contain all the images. Otherwise, a page like Leonardo's or Michaelangelo will have over 14 megs worth of images on them. Your argument would lead to the worse absurdities. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've just told you that we don't dictate local projects editorial policy from Commons, and you've instantly done it. It's useful supplementary material, that can quite happily sit here on Commons for anyone doing further research. Have you even looked at the front page of the Commons, or is it all about sexy time for you? You see how Commons makes headlines of the image galleries it hosts? 29,000 images of minerals? 35,000 images of Indonesia?! Wikimedia Commons is a media repository, it hosts galleries. Understand that. - hahnchen 19:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This makes it clear that "realistically useful for an educational purpose" and "an image does not magically become useful by arguing that “it could be used to illustrate a Wikipedia article on X”, where X happens to be the subject of the file" only is in scope. Therefore, we -do- determine here what is in scope. That is very clear in the scope. Please discontinue this completely incorrect line of rhetoric. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is not within the scope of Commons. We are not a comprehensive database of every single piece of work by an artist. There are tens of thousands of art work by far superior artists and we would not legitimately host even 1% of that. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Totally agree with Ottava. Can anyone Administrator speedydelete all but four pictures in Category:Rembrandt please!--Ankara (talk) 19:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Rembrandt has individually notable paintings and the works are discussed there. 2. Many of the images there are from them being cleaned up and must be kept for GFDL purposes. 3. The Rembrandt page is not cluttered with the images. Your sarcasm verifies that your line of argument was not based on anything and is an illegimate rationalization of images that serve no real purpose. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless I've missed something, the project scope doesn't require an image to be in use. Therefore, whether or not an image is in use does not determine whether it should stay or go. Adambro (talk) 19:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You have missed something then. Commons is a hub for the others. Images are "encyclopedic" (thus, within scope) when they are in use in other projects in an appropriate manner. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This is incorrect. Images do not have to be in use for them to be useful as supplementary material. If you have a problem with image clutter, goto a local Wikipedia where you're not blocked, and then resolve it. - hahnchen 19:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ottava seems to suggest that an image has to be in use to be within scope. That isn't what COM:SCOPE says. I do hope my interpretation is correct. As an example, I've taken numerous photos at railway stations across the UK. Not all are in use. Should those not in use be deleted? Adambro (talk) 20:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Examples of paintings that are individually notable and have their own pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. There are others. There are not any individual notable works by the artist in question. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This is irrelevant. Every single sketch by Raphael may not be notable, but it'd be worthwhile material to host on the Commons. That would be fantastic. - hahnchen 19:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    From the scope: "For example, the fact that an unused blurred photograph could theoretically be used to illustrate an article on “Common mistakes in photography” does not mean that we should keep all blurred photographs." We are not to host every image because it could possibly be used. That includes all images by Raphael. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Feel free to restore it. I had restored it, and then redeleted it as I am not ready to put my name on it. But if someone else want to take the responsibility, go right ahead. Lupo 19:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Eh, why was it in use? I thought it was one of those I had restored, so it shouldn't have been "in use"... Apparently I got confused. (Just checked by logs, and indeed number 006 wasn't one of my restorations.) Sorry about that. Well, anyway, feel free to restore it if you like. Lupo 19:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support art, no porn NobbiP 19:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - work by a notable artist, therefore within scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. There is established support for the inclusion of drawn works of art by notable artists, regardless of content. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Franz_von_Bayros_008.jpg

[edit]

File:Franz_von_Bayros_008.jpg in google (switch SafeSearch off) was deleted without discussion. It was in use. This is art by de:Franz von Bayros. Please undelete. --Saibo (Δ) 17:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • It was in use at a wikipedia mainspace article at ptwiki - what do you mean by "cluttered on a page that could not support it to justify inclusion on Commons", we (Commons) do not make editorial decisions for Wikipedia in Portuguese. Finn Rindahl (talk) 19:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, repeat it was in use at Portuguese wikipedia, as seen here, as one of three images in a gallery illustration the art of v Bayros. That's a perfectly encyklopedic and relevant use of an artistic work. Did you even check the log linked above before commenting, or did you just copypaste what you wrote above? Finn Rindahl (talk) 20:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Feel free to restore it. I had restored it, and then redeleted it as I am not ready to put my name on it. But if someone else want to take the responsibility, go right ahead. Lupo 19:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Eh, why was it in use? I thought it was one of those I had restored, so it shouldn't have been "in use"... Apparently I got confused. (Just checked by logs, and indeed number 008 wasn't one of my restorations.) Sorry about that. Well, anyway, feel free to restore it if you like. Lupo 19:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support art, no porn NobbiP 19:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. There is established support for the inclusion of drawn works of art by notable artists, regardless of content. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Franz_von_Bayros_023.jpg

[edit]

File:Franz_von_Bayros_023.jpg not in google (switch SafeSearch off) was deleted without discussion. It was not in use. This is art by de:Franz von Bayros. Please undelete. --Saibo (Δ) 17:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose Not "in use", it was cluttered on a page that could not support it to justify inclusion on Commons. Gaming the system is not appropriate to a keep. Non-encyclopedic and not useful. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't looked at the deleted images (by way of google if so, I'm not sysop around here anymore) - I did check the usage prior to their deletion before commenting though, and their usage is the only aspect I have commented on. Finn Rindahl (talk) 20:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. There is established support for the inclusion of drawn works of art by notable artists, regardless of content. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Masturbating female and male.jpg

[edit]

Deleted by Jimbo in his porn purge, was in use on tl.wikipedia.org (delinker log). -mattbuck (Talk) 17:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"In use" does not mean just used. There are many images, such as those without copyright" that are removed. We have a delinker bot and have had it for a very long time because merely being linked does not imply "in use". Ottava Rima (talk) 19:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, actually "in use" means just that. If COM:SCOPE meant to say "in a use that we think is appropriate", then it would say that. Once again, you bring in licensing; it's a red herring.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support It's in use. It's a simple photograph illustration of the subject under question; again, if it were anything else, no one would hesitate to accept educational value.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From policy: "For example, the fact that an unused blurred photograph could theoretically be used to illustrate an article on “Common mistakes in photography” does not mean that we should keep all blurred photographs." It is not just "porn" that this applies to. There is no legitimate reason to keep within policy. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keyword there: unused. Read the section, instead of quoting it out context.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The section title is "File not legitimately in use". Your statement does not apply and shows a misunderstanding of the policy. The section is clearly about when files are being used but are not legitimately within "in use". This is one such instance spelled out very clearly in our policy. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support tl:Pagsasalsal is an established, legitimate use; it's an article about masturbation, and the image has been present since 6 March 2010. Additionally, it appears to be derived from at least one image that we have already restored by consensus. Ottava is grasping at straws. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See the quote from policy above. The section is called "File not legitimately in use". This is one such file. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, if you actually read the section, instead of just the title, you would see that it doesn't support your case at all.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And Dcoetzee, look at your own link. There is already an image of a man and woman masturbating. There is no legitimate claim that a second is needed. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose, as is a file in use for some operational reason such as within a template or the like. Such a file is not liable to deletion simply because it may be of poor quality: if it is in use, that is enough."--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From the section "File not legitimately in use" - "The emphasis here is on realistic utility, either for one of the Wikimedia projects or for some other educational use. Not all images for example are realistically useful for an educational purpose, and an image does not magically become useful by arguing that “it could be used to illustrate a Wikipedia article on X”, where X happens to be the subject of the file." Your statement has no basis in policy. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ottava, how much do you know about the style and media inclusion standards of the Tagalog Wikipedia? Do you speak Tagalog? If you do, I invite you to discuss the matter of whether this image is useful in this article at tl:Usapan:Pagsasalsal. Meanwhile, we should not be making editorial decisions for local wikis here at Commons. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dcoetzee, these are WMF standards set down in Commons's scope. Please see the above quote. It makes it very clear when something is legitimately in use or not, and it makes it clear that we should not have multiple images depicting the same type of topic. See the phrases: "does not mean that we should keep all blurred photographs" and "does not mean that we should keep all pornographic images". These are clear statements that we should keep our amount of images of a certain action to a small number. There are already too many equivalent images to be used. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Used in a Wikipedia article, therefore in scope according to the relevant local policy. --Eusebius (talk) 21:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:SuicideGirl - Evan.png

[edit]

This file was deleted as being a copyright violation of the suicidegirls.com after just 3 minutes of being open. However the rationale of this deletion is wrong as there is a otrs ticket (number 2008110310027958), connecting this site to its flickr account. Tm (talk) 04:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is being discussed on the village pump. Half of the images (or so, don't take it as a real number just a substantial amount) were not tagged with the OTRS and such details didn't come out until later. Mostly, it is a question about them being the second licenser and what kinds of rights they can relicense under (since they determine what rights the original uploader has and what their website takes). See for more details. Chances all, the category will be determined as acceptable or not acceptable as a whole. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the image was not being used in any of the other projects if this is accurate. So, beyond that it would seem to not be useful.Ottava Rima (talk) 04:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Celestial_Pee_-_from_Durty_Gurl_exhibition.jpg

[edit]

Abuse of speedy deletion. If you want to question it, restore it and launch a DR. It's not outlaw and it illustrates urolagnia. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 07:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose, same case and opinion as above (#File:Cum_on_face_on_Second_Life.jpg as long it is not in archive). "It illustrates urolagnia"... is that realy your understanding of quality? It is a 2nd Live screenshot, it is not illustrative for any real live topic. It is a personal fantasy of some non-notable individual who incidentally took a screenshot of it and posted it to flickr. It is neither educational, nor instructive nor informative. It is furthermore a pic from a private image collection, it is self-created artwork without educational value, the file description was a container for promotion, the image is not useful to illustrate what it ought to illustrate. Wow, thats 3.25 of 5 in COM:PS#Examples. 'Jimbos law', no matter the arrogance against this project or the really bad implementation, is not an anti-porn rule in the first place, it is a pro quality and selection rule. Mirroring everything that happens on 2nd Live has nothing to do with quality nor selection. Keep deleted and save our time, it is not required to bother the community with such out of scope content. --Martin H. (talk) 10:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose As I stated above, I believe sexual Second Life screenshot serve an obvious educational purpose and are in scope. However, I also think we've come to the conclusion that they're probably copyright violations, since the rights to much of the content depicted are not owned exclusively by the uploader. Dcoetzee (talk) 11:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose per Martin H. Wknight94 talk 12:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose per Martin H. --Herby talk thyme 13:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted on grounds of probable copyright violation and early-close per WP:SNOW. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:CHRISTOPHER & MICHAEL.jpg

[edit]

Could an admin please have a look whether the res. of the deleted image was higher than that of this File:CHRISTOPHER&MICHAEL.jpg --DieBuche (talk) 13:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The deleted image was 711×490 pixels. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
thx. could u restore it to here File:Cristopher & Michael-Autograph card.jpg? Using this description
== Summary == {{Information |Description=Autographed postcard of the German singer / sonwriter duo [[:de:Christopher & Michael|Christopher & Michael]]. Even though the photograph is branded with the CBS logo (the record company of Christopher & Michael), the rights to the photograph are held by Michael de la Fontaine (Wikipedia account MichaeldlF), one of the original duo. |Source={{own}} |Date=1965-1968 |Author= [[User:MichaeldlF|MichaeldlF]] |Permission= |other_versions= }} == Licensing == {{self|GFDL|cc-by-3.0|migration=redundant}} [[Category:Christopher & Michael]] [[Category:Signatures of people from Germany]]
--DieBuche (talk) 14:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't we ask for confirmation from OTRS first? –Juliancolton | Talk 13:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed, I merged the two files (regretably with full description, thats a bit of mess now in the version history - sry) --Martin H. (talk) 22:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

Boulder4202009

[edit]

Someone deleted my file File:Boulder4202009.jpg from the article en:420 (cannabis culture). It is a file of my own work and when I submitted it, I didn't fill out the information correctly and wish to try again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coloradostate (talk • contribs) 04:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed - nothing happens, in the meantime the image is deleted again as missing a license tag. Nothing more to do here. --Martin H. (talk) 22:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Homepage-e-monsite.png & File:Homepage-agendaculturel.png

[edit]

I would like to request the undeletion of the above files: - they are screenshots of publicly visible websites - they are being used to illustrate an entry written about those websites - they are being used with the express permission of the management of the company responsible for the publication of the websites, to illustrate entries about their websites

(and I'll confess I can't find the procedure ... sorry, I have a short memory)

Many thanks for your consideration.--Colinblane (talk) 14:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to ask the copyright holder to send an email to OTRS, just like you did for File:Homepage-doomby.png. However, the second image contains a map which was most likely not created by the webmaster; if it is a free map, its source will have to be specified (and it should be attributed if required by its license). –Tryphon☂ 14:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The map was part of the design of the page, created at the same time as the rest of the website design by the same webdesigner (in-house at Awelty). I'm sending the emails, but don't know how to edit the status of the files to note the "OTRS PENDING" as I can't access them ...--Colinblane (talk) 15:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just remember that by uploading to commons, images can be used by anyone for any purpose, including commercial ones. If you're just interested in the english wikipedia, you could upload it there under fair use rules. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would that I could! That would be some much simpler, unfortunately it's for the French Wikipedia.--Colinblane (talk) 15:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed, such content requires written permission e.g. via OTRS, one image was recreated and tagged by OTRS volunteer, so the process is clear and nothing more to discuss or do here. --Martin H. (talk) 22:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Orgasmic_muscle_contractions.ogg

[edit]

File:Orgasmic_muscle_contractions.ogg was deleted without discussion. It was not in use, but the file name sounds highly medical and educational. Please undelete. --Saibo (Δ) 19:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose undelete, at least until a content rating system is in place. Wknight94 talk 20:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Support undelete; commons is international Erik Warmelink (talk) 20:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for assessing the video. I'd like to make the assessment by myself. We could delete it then in consensus if it is not useful. And: could you please point me to an alternative you've mentioned? --Saibo (Δ) 21:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We have 159 photos here Category:Exterior_of_the_Colosseum, nobody delete picture here because its just "it's just another picture of Colosseum". There is no valid reason to delete, and it was no consensus. Please undelet and start a DR.--Ankara (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Saibo: File:Male masturbation followed by ejaculation.ogv is a similar but higher-quality video. @Ankara: Inconsistent application of the rules is not a justification for not following them. However, I would support restoring and opening a deletion review, if the closing admin wishes to do that. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Dcoetzee: thank you - the video you pointed to is of high quality, indeed. Nevertheless, article authors should have the choice of serveral videos. Variety is also better for our readers using the commonscat links in wikipedia articles. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 23:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See above for why "in use" is not an appropriate argument. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is. The rules are clear. And the link is righ there to read. What you say is not. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 15:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See above for how the previous user's copy and pasted response is inappropriate and does not follow our policies. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See above for why "in use" is not an appropriate argument. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus to delete is not an appropriate statement for an undelete. You need to justify within policy why this image is necessary, such as provide clear evidence that an image is appropriately used in a manner necessary to its being undeleted. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restored per consensus - low-quality and not in use, but clear educational purpose in illustrating masturbation and local projects should have many choices. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Stratz - Körper des Kindes 04.jpg

[edit]

An artistic photograph of a nude boy and girl by a renowned German photographer. Deleted by User:Tiptoety as "Out of project scope". Original description: "Boy and girl at Posillipo (Naples). Photo by Wilhelm von Plüschow (see en:Guglielmo Plüschow), dating from the 1890s, from the book Der Körper des Kindes und seine Pflege by Carl Heinrich Stratz". Dcoetzee (talk) 23:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Part of: The Victorian Nude "Exposed: The Victorian Nude," a exhibition from Britain's Tate Gallery shown in U.S, London, Japan and Germany source--Ankara (talk) 16:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are also murders in those country. That does not mean the action was legal. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, after reading your article there is substantial evidence that these aren't real pieces of "art" so they do not fit any reasonable encyclopedic value. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can we please stop with the amateur lawyer arguments. If this image is against the law, we'd have Wikimedia legal wade in and OFFICE this away. Can we please stop with the amateur art historian arguments too. Professional lawyers and curators have looked at these images, and displayed them in various institutions, ruling them legal, and worthy of the label, "art". The amateur encyclopedist's argument though, you can keep. - hahnchen 22:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not correct. It has already been reported on that the FBI is seriously investigating such images as that. They would not continue an investigation if such was true. They don't have infinite resources, you know. You are clearly wrong on the matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It has been reported by whom? If you're talking about the report I'm thinking of, it's a less credible source than the w:World Weekly News, and they never claimed that the FBI was continuing an investigation. If the FBI had an objection to the image, they're not going to sue the Wikimedia Foundation over debatable hundred year old pictures; they're going to tell our attorney to take them down, and they're going to be taken down. Any thing else is just fear, uncertainty and doubt.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Failing the miller test MEANS it's NOT illegal. In US law the SCOTUS has continuously upheld that the miller test is the metric for legality of pornographic images. This would without any doubt fail it. — raeky (talk | edits) 13:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I have some ambiguity on this one - my gut reaction is that this artist is a "common procurator" with a "von" and a Schloss and a fancy camera - but the article lists something like ten books written about this person. The U.S. has some serious mental problems with naked children, sometimes prosecuting parents as child pornographers for taking innocent pictures, sometimes showing children's genitals in documentaries on cable TV. But legally this shouldn't be child pornography, and it should be within the scope of Wikimedia Commons' efforts to archive public domain artwork. Wnt (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Having an author as notability does not determine if it is legal or not. There are pages on notable pedophiles, afterall. Furthermore, Commons is subject to US law so your opinion on the right or wrong of US law does not change the fact that they are subject to it. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually being a notable author does affect how your works are treated. When a copy of one "Michael Angelo"'s works were stopped by US Customs in the 1930s for being obscene, you'd be amazed how fast that was overturned. More importantly, if they were going to declare the works of a notable author obscene, they would have done it when they were being paraded through museums. By not doing so, the FBI has made a tacit acceptance of these pictures as legal. Further non-action after your "reporters" to the FBI have surely pointed out these pictures to the FBI is more tacit acceptance.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The law does not say famous artists are allowed to break the law. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's non-responsive.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I take it from your response that you cede the argument that this is illegal regardless of the individual doing it. WMF made it clear that they will not host images that violate the law, so the supports are rather null and void at this point. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As with many such old images, if anyone were truly concerned it was illegal then it wouldn't be available in any form. Nudity is not always pornography any more than pornography is always nudity. You're coming at this from the Virgin Killer direction - arguing to ban something which has been around for years and years legally because you find it personally offensive. Get over yourself. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is plenty of child porn on the internet even though it is illegal. I'm surprised you would try to make a claim that if something exists it must be okay. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I take it from your response that cede the argument that the FBI has tacitly said it's okay.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
VK? I think if it were illegal it would have been declared illegal at the time. For this.... well, if it is a notable artist as claimed, then yes I'd think that it's legal on the basis that there would have otherwise been some prosecution. If non-notable, delete as out of scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quite the contrary, if it was legal they would have announced it days ago. Now they are figuring out how to get rid of the material and who gets what penalty and how. The FBI wouldn't continue without any response if they weren't certain about there being a problem of some kind. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On what planet? Because on mine, the FBI doesn't going around sending letters saying "the images on your website are okay." Nor do they stand around while child porn is openly published; in most cases, they tell the website to take it down and the site does. Nor do they decide who gets what penalty; that's left to the judge and jury.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC
For the past 50 years, the FBI has always made an announcement of no finding if it is a well publicized investigation, as this is since it has been mentioned in multiple newspapers. That has always been the case and it probably always will be the case. Furthermore, the FBI puts forth the ground work for what laws have been broken. Your understanding of the FBI and the legal system leaves much to be desired. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
People, if this material were truly child pornography, then "deleting" it by the usual Wiki mechanism would not be enough! Putting child porn behind a paywall doesn't let you off the hook legally, and restricting it to a group of "administrators" doesn't either. Plenty of people have been sent to jail for having a deleted file on their hard drive. So if you really think this picture is child porn, by all means, call up the Wikipedia office, get them to purge the file off the server, do a w:secure erase on it, pull out the hard drive, bash it with a sledge-hammer, sprinkle it with lighter fluid and set it on fire. (No, don't actually do that, they'd only charge you with destroying evidence — I think in reality if you end up holding a child porn image through no fault of your own you're just plain fucked, with no possible way to avoid charges except through the loving and temporary grace of a well-pleasured prosecutor, no?)
I very much doubt that the FBI is done investigating, because there is so much stuff on Wikimedia, and if the goodies they're looking for exist they're probably deleted or encrypted or oversighted or something, buried so deep nobody but the FBI could ever find them. Wnt (talk) 16:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting it has been standard procedure for illegal images. If you want to change the procedure I am sure you can start an RfC, but the WMF wont accept such things because they are legally bound to act in the way they set forth. No amount of "opinion" or attempt to put together a "consensus" to force the WMF to go against the law will be accepted. Furthermore, pedophiles and those who encourage pedophilia are regularly banned and going down that path will suggest a short stay here. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Publication does not mean legal. There are many works that are published illegally, including pirated works as a very common example. Furthermore, this is child porn under US law, which was very clear on the matter. Its definition and your definition might be different, but the standard applied is its definition and not your personal one. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Publication by non-underground publishing house generally is legal, and when it's not, the FBI, just like everyone else, does their best to stop the material from ever leaving the warehouse. The job of the FBI is to stop child porn, not sit on their asses while it's being published and distributed. The standard of child porn has long established that mere nudity does not make for child porn.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but that just isn't true. All publishing houses have been affected by producing illegal content, even Oxford and Cambridge University Presses. Just because something is produced does not make it acceptable under law. Furthermore, the standards of child porn have long stated that fixation on the privates or displaying of them crosses the line. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but that just isn't true. Nude children are not automatically child pornography, and visibility of genitals is but one of many factors considered in the assessment of whether an image "appeals to prurient interests." The Library of Congress includes photos of nude children. This image has never been to court, so none of us knows for sure what a judge would say about it, but it has been recently exhibited in major museums in the United States and other countries, and it has clear educational value. It's also clear that the distribution of this photo does not promote child exploitation or sully the public reputation of these children, who are presumably long dead, so I don't really see a moral issue here. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"and visibility of genitals is but one of many factors considered" It is a primary factor. Gentilia are not allowed to be center and of focus in an image. They are supposed to be obscure if they are included. There is nothing obscure or outside of the artistic focus on this image. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I.e. Library of Congress is so stupid that it hosts illegal pictures: [16], [17]? Trycatch (talk) 20:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support art, no porn NobbiP 20:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support not porn by any reasonable, as judged by many competent authorities. Of course we are obliged to act legally. If this is illegal, we will be so informed, but it does not appear to be, except in the judgment of a fringe. In the US, nudity does not make things porn, even for children., though there are presumably some people who think it should be. But even in the grip of a considerable degree of national hysteria, the legal standard carefully avoided saying that. DGG (talk) 23:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Already undeleted by User:ChrisiPK. Also clear consensus to restore. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Beaujolais_Nouveau_bottle.jpg

[edit]

Well - this is not about this specific file - this is rather about the subject of general deletion policy on Commons. I don't know if it is right place to write this story. If not, please transfer this to more relevant place. Although long time on Commons, I don't feel personally to be a member of Commons community as I am using this project just for uploading files and maintaining OTRS requests. As a user I just want to be treated in fair and reasonable way. I think the main problem with deletion policy is it's random mechanism. There are many admins who specializes in deletion only. There are also many users whose main activity is just adding “speedy deletion” templates. Admins who "clean up" deletion categories, and other users just add pictures there without any clear plan, leaving hundreds similar pictures untouched. So the users are hit by these decisions also quite randomly, and no one can be sure that his/her contribution won't be suddenly deleted for this or another reason. Moreover there is no real legal discussions on this project - which should be performed by professional lawyers not just by those who are very active in deleting, but their knowledge about copyright law is probably close to 0 or even worse, they have ‘’’false’’’ misunderstanding of the intellectual property issues. So the ideas what is legal and what is not are in fact just random on this project. This is rather a subject of current fashion moods and trends than any reasonable decisions based on professional legal arguments.

If the reason for deletion of this particular file make a legal sense (16:18, 13 lut 2010 EugeneZelenko deleted File:Beaujolais Nouveau bottle.jpg ‎ (Derivative of non-free content: Commercial packaging), there are at least several thousands more files to be deleted ASAP, as well. Therefore I started to mark them for speedy deletion, why not?

Just some examples:

But it is just a top of iceberg. See: Category:Winebottles, Category:Alcoholic beverages, Category:Cooking oils, Category:Mineral waters, and then, when you finish I have several other categories to clean up from as it is written in deletion explanation "(Derivative of non-free content: Commercial packaging)". Bear in mind that if this is treated seriously - i.e we should delete from Commons the pictures showing copyrighted pieces of commercial design - we should also delete vast majority of pictures in all categories by brand - as the pictures in those categories present quite often single products with no context. The design of mass industrial products is quite obviously the subject of copyright and other intellectual property law's issues. Why to delete "commercial packaging" only – the products themselves are also the subject of intellectual property law. For example producing a vehicle which is too similar to another one is intellectual property violation – so the picture of that vehicle as a “derivative of commercial product” is non-free as well? ‘’’Probably yes!’’’ If so – delete them all ASAP.

Polimerek (talk) 13:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose undeletion - why should wine labels be different from other graphics? But yes, deletions are quite random. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see a clear undeletion request here. Are you asking for undeletion of File:Beaujolais Nouveau bottle.jpg on the basis that other stuff exists? No doubt there are a lot of photos around whose main subject is a copyrighted, non-free label. Those should indeed be deleted. The reason deletion lags behind in this area might be that there are some tricky questions to be answered, and it's all on a case-by-case basis. For each file, one has to establish whether the label is the main subject of the photo or an incidental de minimis inclusion, whether or not the design is eligible for copyright protection, and whether the copyright protection is still valid or expired.
If you just want to discuss what constitutes a derivative work, Commons talk:Derivative works is a better forum. The corresponding Commons page, Commons:Derivative works, also explains your question about vehicles and other utilitarian commercial products. (They're not protected by copyright, but by industrial design patents.) —LX (talk, contribs) 13:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well in case of my picture it was just deleted after few hours it was marked for deletion. When I stared discussion about it, it was just deleted by admin. No one analyzed seriously the issue and no good explanation of deletion was given. It was told, that I have to prove that the picture is not a subject of copyright. It seems, that in order to delete it is just enough to have some unclear suspection that there might be a copyvio... In fact the label on the bottle had a large painting on it, probably one of the posters of Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec, which are in the public domain - but in order to be sure I have to see this picture, as I took the photo of the bottle several years ago and do not remember the picture. The admin who deleted the picture explained that he examined the picture and found it "quite modern" (although he doesn't know what exactly it is). If such the deletion procedure is OK, so all the wine-bottle pictures having a piecies of art on them should also be removed with similar speed. There is nothing to examine in their case. "It is the uploader obligation to prove that they are legal".
Well, the problem is that all that disussion are performed by non-lawyers, who behave as they had good knowledge about the law, but they probably haven't. This is waste of time to perform such discussions with non-professional lawyers. This is like talks about colors with blind people. Law problems should be resolved by lawers - not by random users. Polimerek (talk) 14:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't understand if this is an undeletion request or a request for absolute consistency in all deletion processes (which is impossible to achieve). Lawyers are hideously expensive. Wikimedia doesn't have enough money to employ full-time lawyers to review every upload. Not being lawyers doesn't mean operating completely in the blind, though; even a layman can read copyright statute and case law and make a best-effort judgment. It just means we may have to err on the side of caution a bit more often. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I opened Commons:Deletion requests/Wine labels. Discussions about the opportunity of deletion should go there. Jean-Fred (talk) 21:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed. --O (谈 • висчвын) 12:02, 13 May 2010 (GMT)


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

Photos of paintings deleted despite PD-Art

[edit]

Could the images deleted as a result of Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Jorunn (uploaders request) be restored? These images were deleted as a result of (1) outdated policy on the use of {{PD-Art}}, or (2) a misunderstanding of that policy — I'm not sure which one, but I'm quite confident that one or the other is the case. About a year after the discussion was closed, Pieter Kuiper left the following comment on the page:

Undelete everything in the list because of the policy on {{PD-Art}}

Since these images are within our scope, and since the deletion discussion was based on reasons that are against current consensus, I don't see any good reason not to have these images. Nyttend (talk) 15:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, these images were moved to en:wp because faithful photography of PD-old 2D works is indisputably not copyrightable in the USA. Some of these images have since been returned to Commons; see File:Sohlberg-Natt.jpg, File:N Astrup-St. Hansbål ved Jølstervatnet.jpg, and File:Christian Krohg-Kampen for tilværelsen 1889.jpg for examples. Nyttend (talk) 15:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2010-02#Images of Jorunn -- while these are OK in the U.S. and on Commons, the uploader may face liability in their own country, and did not want to take that risk. That was the secondary (now primary) reason they were deleted, which is still valid. I think separate re-uploads are preferable. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; I've never come to this page before, so I didn't think of looking in the archives. Could an admin look at these images to see if there's any indication of their names at en:wp? I'm in the USA. Nyttend (talk) 17:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The original image is still on the source website: http://www.passia.org/images/personalities/Husseni-Abdul-Qader/qader-1.htm --Pabouk (talk) 14:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This travelled from a different section here. It is about currently automatically archived Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2010-03#Flopped image. --Pabouk (talk) 09:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done --O (谈 • висчвын) 12:04, 13 May 2010 (GMT)


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

File:Sex intercourse.jpg

[edit]

this image would fail test #3 of the miller test, since it would have a reasonable educational use. Likely also fails #2 since it's not patently offensive. This image also has clear community consensus to keep. — raeky (talk | edits) 00:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note, image was in use - Delinker log
  •  Support undelete, though I can see how the image is offensive to the (pun intended) peanut gallery. Erik Warmelink (talk) 01:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose undelete. Commons is not a porn site. Tiptoety talk 02:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Commons isn't a porn site and the image isn't pornographic. But even if the image were pornographic, quod non, a collection of all human knowledge will also contain knowledge about porn and prudery. This image will be useful as an example of US prudery. Just continue like this and wait for the International Conference to Review the Wikipedia Vision of Art. Erik Warmelink (talk) 03:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support undelete. I know that the deletion was made in good faith, but a file for which there was consensus to keep on two occasions should not have been summarily deleted on the basis of subjective, personal criteria of propriety. Restore the image and nominate for DR to allow for proper discussion of COM:SCOPE, including whether the file is/was used on any WMF projects; if it was not, then I would support deletion (and, of course, defer to the community consensus if it is to keep). Black Falcon (talk) 07:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support. Abuse of power to delete, no consensus.--Ankara (talk) 07:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support undelete. Images which were kept in deletion discussions should never be speedy deleted, unless new information comes to light (e.g. fabricated license info). It's not the best image of woman-on-man penetrative intercourse I could imagine though, though - could use a higher quality replacement. Dcoetzee (talk) 07:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose undelete at least until there is a content rating system in place. Wknight94 talk 11:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Images previously kept really should never be speedily deleted. On the other hand, I hardly see how this would be useful in any article. –SJ+
  •  Oppose, sex act, not an encyclopaedic depiction. That it was previously kept is an indication that Commons had lost its way. Jimbo's no prude but Commons is not supposed to be the world's only charitably funded porn server. Guy 22:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose, not encyclopedic Peter Damian (talk) 22:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support undelete, at least temporarily. There needs to be a system wide discussion on what is to be kept and what isn't. For example, there's a line drawing of telephone sex that is of little value. This photo is of more value. Many other photos discussed I've never seen so deletion requests are handicapped by only a few people remember what the image is. In terms of deletion process, this image should be restored since there was nothing new since the two previous unsuccessful deletions. As far as the section quoted, that was not the reason it was deleted. It was deleted citing porn. Line drawings are more likely to be porn since they exaggerate genital or breast size while photos are accurate depictions. In short, let's undelete this until a system wide guideline can be developed.

Another point is that this is not a certain type of porn in that there is not a closeup of the genitalia and also breasts are not shown, which is not relevant for the cowgirl (position) article it was used for. Assorg (talk) 04:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Support Per Commons:Project_scope#File_in_use_in_another_Wikimedia_project Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 20:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone can add an image as a vandal, so "in use" cannot be construed merely as it appearing somewhere. It must actually be -used-, which requires it to fulfill various criteria within common sense, such as it is appropriate, necessary, and not crowding with other images (throwing more images than there is text, for example, is not appropriate for "used". Ottava Rima (talk) 22:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Very well, we shall examine the "vandalism". There was one instance of a gallery as examples of Category:Sex. There was one user page, which was a collection of nude images from a user with no other contributions, which has now been deleted. There was one article on heterosexuality where the image had been for a bit over a year. One article on hardcore pornography, where the image had been for around 5 months. Both pages seem to have fairly good rationales to use such an image. Since I can't be bothered to reply "see above ~~~~" to every single comment you made, I shall just say that while there may be some vandalism, the vast majority are reasonable uses. And you're wrong as to your opinion on "used" - we simply require that another project uses it in an article, we do not give a rat's about the quality of the article, that's a matter for the local project. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreeing with Mattbuck - making specious claims that an image is "not really in use, it was added by a vandal" without backing it up just destroys your own credibility. This does happen sometimes, but in the vast majority of cases such images are not in use for very long. Even more ridiculous is the claim that an image is "not in use" if it's not used in compliance with local style guidelines! In-use images may be deleted because of legal concerns but not as out of scope. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Dcoetzee, that is not what I stated. My statement was that "in use" did not mean "put on a page". There is an example of you verifying Martin H. example on 19:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC). It needs to be proved that the image was legitimately put up and legitimately was necessary to the encyclopedia before the "in use" argument can be used. Instead, the argument was merely copied and pasted all the way down without any consideration towards that. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I do agree that "in use" is not by itself a good argument - however, "established use in article en:X" is a much stronger argument. Supporters should review image use carefully. Dcoetzee (talk) 03:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support was in use. Was deleted without consensus. --Saibo (Δ) 00:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - in use, no idea about the quality. feydey (talk) 09:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Illustrates the position en:Woman on top (sex position), with no unnecessary lascivity. Seems to be the only photo in Category:Woman-on-top_positions apart from File:EXXXOTICA_2008_._Morgan_Dayne.jpg, in which both participants are (sort of) fully dressed. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Illustrates the position" There are already five images of it. Therefore, there is no argument that an additional one is necessary or this adds any value. Furthermore, there is no proof on the page that such a "position" is notable enough to warrant its own page on the subject or is anything but a dictionary definition. There is no encyclopedic value. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ottava, please go to Wikipedia want to discuss writing articles. And please do not forget that there is not only Wikipedia. There are several other Wikimedia projects which use the commons service. Ad Wikipeda: The reader of an article gets a better understanding of the subject if there isn't just one image as example. If there are more images (not necessarily in the article, also possible with a web link to a commons category) he can compare the several images and abstract the important key elements. --Saibo (Δ) 18:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is contradictory. You cannot use use on a Wiki then claim that the use doesn't need to be examined to be justified. You can have one or the other, not both. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Todd Frantom, a US Navy Mass Communication Specialist I randomly choose, has 309 pictures at commons, none of them shows fighting. Do we want high resolution pictures of almost nothing, or do we want low quality pictures of things that matter? Erik Warmelink (talk) 20:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We already have plenty of images already to depict the topic. From the policy: "For example, the fact that an unused blurred photograph could theoretically be used to illustrate an article on “Common mistakes in photography” does not mean that we should keep all blurred photographs." The policy makes it clear that "in use" does not apply to keeping all images of a certain topic but only a few to illustrate and delete the rest. There is already at least one equivalent on the page that covers the topic 100%. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And yet it was in use. We are not here to apply editorial standards to other projects. We are debating whether it was properly licenced, within scope, and whether there are any personality rights to consider. It was properly licenced (flickrreviewed), it was in scope (in use on 3 projects). Personality rights I might be willing to consider, but from the flickr stream it seems pretty consensual and the participants are not identifiable. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but the scope, in very clear words, says 100% opposite of what you claim. "Not all images for example are realistically useful for an educational purpose, and an image does not magically become useful by arguing that “it could be used to illustrate a Wikipedia article on X”, where X happens to be the subject of the file." From the Scope. There is no way to interpret besides it must have clear and objective need in the page and there is no equivalent. We are not a hosting site of many variations of the same image. There was no proof that this was the only image to represent what it represents. Quite the opposite, we have thousands of alternatives. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And Mattbuck, the scope even says we are not to become flickr. Saying it is on flickr is a reason not to host it here. "There are plenty of other projects on the Internet you can use for such a purpose, such as Flickr." That includes sexual ones too. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"it is on flickr is a reason not to host it here" - how should we use it then? It would be nice if you could stop posting your personal misinterpretations of the guidelines to every UDR. We know now that you are against any picture showing a piece of naked skin and against any picture if one could imagine that there is naked skin under the clothes. --Saibo (Δ) 23:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We already have over 100 alternatives. The scope makes it clear we are not to host excessive duplicates of the same thing. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And yet this one was the one that was in use. That says something about the alternatives - people apparently don't think they're as good. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I've refrained from commenting on this one, as I am the deleter, however. 1 Jimbo didn't nearly deliver what he promised me to deliver and what convinced me to delete this image in the first place. 2. Our categories on Sexual intercourse are GLARINGLY empty now atm. So although I think that the quality of this image is rather poor, I do think that an argument for undeletion has some merit. TheDJ (talk) 00:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your honest comment. I cannot view the deleted ones and cant judge quality and content therefore (and will not do it based on google's cache thumbs). Some admin has to undelete or list at least the ones with high quality. --Saibo (Δ) 00:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
TheDJ, if you think they are glaringly empty why are all the pedia pages seemingly still full? The policy states: "There may sometimes be an argument for retaining multiple images that are (from an educational point of view) quite similar, for the sake of variety and availability of choice, but there is no purpose in our hosting tens or even hundreds of essentially identical poor quality images that have no realistic educational value." As you can see, we shouldn't have tens or hundreds of images of "sexual intercourse". Ottava Rima (talk) 14:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Kama Sutra breaks the sexual act down into 64 types and the new edition of w:The Joy of Sex adds an additional 16 pages of full-color pictures to the already existing illustrations. But we, a vastly more comprehensive project, shouldn't have tens of images?--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support We should not have excessive duplicative pictures, but for a human activity with this many variations, I do not think a few hundred excessive. Showing the range of variations is a proper educational purpose. If we are to delete realistically, we should undelete all images like this and then have a discussion comparing them so that ones of the least acceptable educational purpose or technical quality can be deleted.
  •  Support It was in use, and it was one of very few pictures we had covering the subject.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. In use, kept in previous deletion review, very few adequate substitutes. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Cumshot_in_Super-Slow-Motion_(270_fps).gif

[edit]

File:Cumshot_in_Super-Slow-Motion_(270_fps).gif google was deleted without discussion. It was in use in the wikipedia. According to the name and google an educational high speed camera slow motion capture. Please undelete. --Saibo (Δ) 20:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose undelete, at least until a content rating system is in place. Wknight94 talk 20:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that no one has deleted skeletons (Chinese morality) or pictures of the Prophet (Islamic morality). Why aren't you demanding they be deleted until we have a content rating system in place? (And you can't say the Islamic side hasn't been vocal about it.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Support undelete; commons is international Erik Warmelink (talk) 20:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
However that title is horrible — more than half of the issue here is a matter of presentation. Now that Commons is taking the lead role in deleting content, there needs to be some way for editors to hold tedious debates about exactly what to name an item like they do on Wikipedia. Wnt (talk) 18:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See above for why "in use" is not an appropriate argument. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See above for why "in use" is not an appropriate argument. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is. The rules are clear. And the link is righ there to read. What you say is not. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 15:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Normal body function" is not a legitimate statement. There is no way to accurately define "normal" for "abnormal", as killing is perfectly "normal" in nature and we would not allow depictions of murder. By the way, a cum shot fits the very definition of pornography. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let me get this straight; you claim that something that happens to virtually all mature human males is not a normal body function? The average human kills less than one person; the average human ejaculates thousand of times. A cum shot does not fit the very definition of pornography; all definitions of pornography I've seen include the reason, in Wikipedia's words "the purposes of sexual excitement and erotic satisfaction", or as the Supreme Court puts it, "the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to a prurient interest in sex".--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Death happens to all people, will we suddenly host videos of the way people die and in graphic detail? How about a video of a corpse rotting? Rape is also nature, should we have videos of that? Cannibalism is natural, how about that? The "natural" argument does not work in any manner. By the way, a cum shot does fit the very definition of porn because it is a sexual act and sexual acts by definition stimulate sexually. Furthermore, it is a hardcore act as it contains an uncensored sexual activity as opposed to soft core which is just nudity. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What, you think we shouldn't host time-lapse photography of a corpse rotting? Body farm needs more illustration. Your "how about this, how about that" should serve as a warning to all of us — if we did accept any sort of pornography censorship, you'd be right back for lots of other things! Wnt (talk) 16:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Policy is against you, by the way. It clearly says: "The fact that an unused pornographic image could theoretically be used to illustrate an article on pornography does not mean that we should keep all pornographic images". It makes it very clear that we are not going to keep porn just because we can or someone wants to claim we need as much as possible. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The key word there is unused - this was in use. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"File not legitimately in use" is the title. This applies to those you claim are "in use" but aren't legitimately "in use". There is a legitimate and an illegtimate standard and this is spelled out in policy. The very statement above quoted proves that there is not a legitimate reason to keep this image based on "in use". If you want the policy changed, please take the proper steps, but this is the scope handed down by the WMF and will not change any time soon. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose. No legitimate educational value. Kaldari (talk) 18:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It clearly did or it wouldn't have been in use. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • It has been pointed out multiple times that scope has a section "File not legitimately in use" and this clearly falls under many parts of it especially. You have pointed out that you are ignoring policy and what "in use" means in scope, going so far to say exactly opposite of what was directly written there. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Not in scope. Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support In use implies useful implies in scope. --Simonxag (talk) 19:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support in use is a sufficient reason & proves educational use. Legitimately in use means use in good faith, as opposed to use as copyvio or the like. It would take an extremely strong reason to remove a file that was in use, such as copyright problems,--just there being similar files is not sufficient. OR is quite incorrect in appealing to the established policy of the WMF, as discussions in the last few days have shown. Basically the only established policy is that only totally unreasonable use is prohibited to the projects--otherwise they set their own rules. Commons is bound by their decisions about what is educational. Commons does not set the rules for the projects as to what is educational, if only because the projects have different practices here. DGG (talk) 22:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restored per consensus. Only objections were "not in scope" or "no educational value", but is used for a legitimate educational purpose in tl:Pagsasalsal. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Male masturbation top view.gif

[edit]

File speedy deleted by Jimbo with it being in use in four Wikipedia projects. W00pzor (talk) 20:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose undelete, at least until content rating system is in place. Good God, how many masturbation pictures were there on this site?! Am I the only one that hasn't taken pictures of myself doing that?! What are the chances all of these are really {{Own}}? Very low. Wknight94 talk 20:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why useless? Used on four Wiki to illustrate Masturbation. It is not up to Commons to make editorial choices regarding which images should be used by local wikis.--Ankara (talk) 22:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then try, 'not encyclopedic'. Try to understand what an encyclopedia is. With every kind wish Peter Damian (talk) 22:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An encyclopedia is about knowledge, not about censor knowledge. There is no difference between illustrate masturbation or a building. If you do not like masturbation or the architect, you do not have to read the article and see the picture. But do not confuse your views on certain types of images with the encyclopedia or encyclopedic.--Ankara (talk) 22:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Maybe you should understand what Wikimedia Commons isn't - an encyclopedia. And understand what Wikipedia is. And they chose to use this image, because they felt it encyclopedic. We should not be dictating editorial positions on local Wikipedias on the sly on Commons. - hahnchen 23:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Will modify OGV as well. Smoothies (talk) 05:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are hundreds of notable types of dance. There are not the equivalent of notable types of masturbation. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Not in scope. Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support The projects decide what counts as educational use. Jimbo was so grossly wrong in what he deleted here that he resigned his powers to act anywhere where he is not explictly an admin--which I think he still is in enWP, but nowhere else--just as anyone else would have needed to do if they had made such unreasonable use of their bits. He thus made it clear that he accepts that the community, not himself has the authority. No precedent can thus be based on what he chose to delete--if anything, the presumption is whatever he deleted in his 2 days of action was wrongly deleted. The supports here are basically saying that they personally don;t think it educational, but the place to do so is at the projects using the file, where I doubt they will get consensus, for the mainstream liberal WP view on these has probably been liberalized yet further by recent events. DGG (talk) 23:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. Low-quality, but in legitimate use in ko:자위행위, de:Masturbation, iu:ᖃᐸᒃ/qapak, and ta:சுய_இன்பம். Dcoetzee (talk) 00:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Doggy_style_pegging.png

[edit]

File:Doggy_style_pegging.png in google (switch SafeSearch off) was deleted without discussion. It was in use. Please undelete. --Saibo (Δ) 20:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC) Please do also undelete the svg version of it File:Doggy_style_pegging.svg. --Saibo (Δ) 20:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Tetromino: Writing and depicting articles is not commons' job. Commons has to present a selection of images on any topic and authors choose. An exception are images clearly unusable. But, as this was used, this is clearly not the case. --Saibo (Δ) 23:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unquestionably the well-drawn color photo is a better substitute. But are you saying that also isn't allowed? A photo of this type is educational, as most people probably really don't know how to do this. Wnt (talk) 18:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted - out of scope/usefulness arguments are void as an image which is in use automatically is in scope (and clearly useful as someone's using it). It's not a photo or identifiable drawing, so no personality rights issues. I have not restored the one non-user use of it, as the article in question appears to be locked. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Double_Blowjob_in_Sex_Club_(SL).jpg

[edit]

Abuse of speedy deletion. If you want to question it, restore it and launch a DR. It's the only illustration of double fellatio we had on Commons. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 07:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose, same case and opinion as above (#File:Cum_on_face_on_Second_Life.jpg as long it is not archived). --Martin H. (talk) 10:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you aware that we have NO other illustration of the same act ? Therefore quality isn't a good argument. It would gave been if we had another double fellation picture. But we don't. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 13:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose As I stated above, I believe sexual Second Life screenshot serve an obvious educational purpose and are in scope. However, I also think we've come to the conclusion that they're probably copyright violations, since the rights to much of the content depicted are not owned exclusively by the uploader. Dcoetzee (talk) 11:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In that case shouldn't we delete ALL Second Life pictures ? And does it mean that the {{Second life}} template is wrong ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 13:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was not aware of that template. This is an issue we have to revisit... it is true that there are Linden Labs created elements in the picture, but they may be de minimis. My new vote is undelete and nominate for deletion review for further consideration. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose per Martin H. Wknight94 talk 12:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose per Martin H. --Herby talk thyme 13:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose not allowable per copyright. All Second Life images should be deleted. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the press release states that people have the rights to their creation, but that does not negate that Second Life has the rights to the whole item, its background, and other aspects of the image. There is no Freedom of Panorama within video games. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose, probable copyright violation and no realistic educational value. Blurpeace 23:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
undelete and nominate for deletion review along with all other SL images per Dcoetzee Nil Einne (talk) 09:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Biodiesel production.png

[edit]

Undelete File:Biodiesel production.png I think it did had value, on the wikipedia, or on other wikimedia projects (wikiversity, ...). I am aware of the biofuel controversy, and this may be the reason why the image was removed, but I feel that the image makes the biofuel production somewhat more insightly. KVDP (talk) 15:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak  Support undelete, only because the file was speedy deleted. Nothing against deleting admin - it was tagged speedy for a long time - but since the issue is brought up, a COM:DR is probably needed instead to discuss. Wknight94 talk 16:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was deleted just over 10 hours after being uploaded. What is a "long time"? I don't see a speedy tag on the Google cache version either; seemed like it had a license and was claimed own-work. What was the speedy-deletion reason? Don't see it in the log... I can't see the image at all, so I have no idea what the content is, but it would seem that a regular DR would be preferable here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I misread the deletion log. Even more reason to undelete. Wknight94 talk 12:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pussycat dolls - wait a minute single cover.jpg

[edit]

The following album was deleted as "album cover". Really it is, but it consists of a heart with a band written "pussycat" using the typeface font Budmo Jiggler + Jigglish and below, "dolls" made by The Old London font. Also there are "rays" like War flag of the Imperial Japanese Army. All these compositions are very simple, but I'm not sure about the ornamentations above the heart. But I leave this for the community discuss. Heres's the entire cover. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 17:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted. Any one of these elements by itself may be pd-ineligible, but their composition is unique, particularly considering the decorations above the heart. Dcoetzee (talk) 19:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose undeletion. While it's true that any raster graphics can be ultimately deconstructed into simple geometric shapes (pixels), that doesn't mean that all raster graphics are {{PD-shape}}. It took you more than 35 words to give a (very incomplete) description of the design. Sorry, but that doesn't qualify as simple. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted Whilst it may be composed of simple elements, that composition isn't simple. Adambro (talk) 20:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LX@:Sorry, my english is only good for understanding and translating. That's why I put the photo for everybody see by themselves. Thanks for your kind comment. anyway, if community decide this photo musn't stay, then the logo musn't tay too. I did a typeface version that fits my purpose. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 21:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted the ornamentation at the top may be copyrightable on its own; even if not the arrangement is easily copyrightable in my opinion (not borderline either). And yes, that other logo needs to go as well -- it's not even a re-drawing; it uses the precise expression seen in the original (i.e. it was extracted from some other image). Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My intention was not to comment on your command of English, which I think is fine, but rather on the fact that it would take a lot of words for anyone to accurately describe the image, which is indicative of its complexity. I agree that the logo also needs to go. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not done - everything is a simple shape if you boil it down 1 pixel at a time, but many simple shapes form a complex shape and that is copyrightable. Logo also deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Heartagram.png

[edit]

Ineligible for copyright if it is this image. The Copyright Office in the US refused to register copyright of this design, which was upheld on appeal, see decision. Country of origin is Finland, where the threshold of originality is high. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pieter Kuiper, it is a derived work of the heartagram which is significantly more elaborate with decorative elements around the heartagram. --AFBorchert (talk) 13:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hm... this derived work seemed to be the work of the uploader but he failed to tell anything about the origin of the heartagram and claimed it to be “homemade” and described it as “A kick ass heartagram”. It was just used on a user page at en-wp and it remains questionable how that fits into COM:SCOPE even if it doesn't violate a copyright. --AFBorchert (talk) 13:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, withdrawing request. I will upload under a slightly different name, File:Heartagram HIM logo.png. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, withdrawn. –Tryphon☂ 14:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

file 'Vadem-montage.png' undeletion request

[edit]

On January 4th, 2010, I created the account BryanLockwood, uploaded the file Vadem-montage.png, gave it a public domain license (it is my own work) and used it in the Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vadem_Clio

I now find that the file has been deleted and my user account is missing. Why did this happen? Can both of these actions (file deletion and account removal) be reversed?

I can be reached bryanlockwood@gmail.com - thanks for any attention given to this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.183.123 (talk • contribs) 05:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The account you registered is Bryanlockwood (talk · contribs), not BryanLockwood (user names are case-sensitive). The notice on your talk page suggests that you did not provide a valid copyright tag for the file. You were asked to clarify the situation on the same day you uploaded it, and when you didn't respond, it was deleted on 13 January, as shown by the logs. —LX (talk, contribs) 07:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing out the bit about my accountname. I wasn't aware such communications occurred only via talk pages. I did try to fill out the copyright portions of the upload form properly; maybe I missed something? Does this mean I need to re-upload? Or will the image be undeleted? I am not familiar with procedures here; only wanted to improve that one article, and frankly, find all these procedures rather daunting.
Hmm. Two days and no response. I give up.
Try uploading it again, filling in all the fields. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the deleted history, and it seems that, while the uploader forgot to include a license tag, they did fill in the Author field as "Own work" and Permission as "Public Domain". It seems to me that this (plus the additional claim above) should be sufficient to allow undeletion and retagging as {{PD-self}}, which I have just done. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:ChandlerMassey.2009.actor.jpg

[edit]

The picture ChandlerMassey.2009.actor.jpg was deleted and a copyright violation was mentioned. I have the permission of the photographer to use the picture. What do I need to do? Thank you for your assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyyates (talk • contribs) 22:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi person who didn't identify themselves. The best way to go about this would be to email the permission to the people at COM:OTRS and reupload. Remember that by uploading the photographer is agreeing, at the least, that ANYONE can use it for ANY PURPOSE at ANY TIME without notifying him. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is it the same image as File:ChandlerMassey.jpg? –Tryphon☂ 11:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, File:ChandlerMassey.2009.actor.jpg looks like a posed studio photo, although only with an Olympus E-330. Wknight94 talk 12:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll close this request then, OTRS will handle it if they receive proper permission. –Tryphon☂ 12:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, will be handled by OTRS. –Tryphon☂ 12:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Doggirl in her routine shower.jpg

[edit]

Please undelete this and File:Doggirl now and forever.jpg. Both have been deleted by User:Fran Rogers (Out of project scope). After her deletions, her self created Jimbo fancruft has been also deleted. Probably I will find some more out of scope-deletions by Fran Rogers. You may help. 78.55.118.41 11:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I would suggest to restore all deleted pics of Fran Rogers.
This is an interesting example (used in 3 articles!): File:Kaalos g locked-in.jpg, deleted 06:53, 6. Mai 2010. After she has noticed, that Jimbo gets more and more troubles, she has restored this Out of project scope-file 09:52, 6. Mai 2010, together with some others, but not all. Single DRs will give clearness about these files! 78.55.118.41 15:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Undelete no serious deletereasones named, seem to be a religious march, against nudity and free sexuality, ordered by the great founder Bunnyfrosch (talk) 17:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Max Rebo Band and Bunnyfrosch: No, this picture had nothing to do with religion or sexuality - or even nudity. This one was just plain stupid. If I thought it might fit into w:Petplay, I would have kept my mouth shut above - but it doesn't. This link is showing it at the moment. Wknight94 talk 17:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose This image is low quality (subject too close to flash), and it has not educational value. "Here's a random person wearing a dog mask." Whoop dee doo. The image isn't being used, except perhaps in a user's image gallery. Commons is not a personal hosting service. Jehochman (talk) 18:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Undelete Used several times. Illustrates dog play. No reasonable reason for deletion given. Commons provides material for authors worldwide in very different projects.Nemissimo (talk) 15:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restored

[edit]

Restored File:Doggirl in her routine shower.jpg and File:Doggirl now and forever.jpg. The suggestions that these images could have an educational value do seem to have at least some merit. Therefore it is better to restore them, since there aren't any other concerns that have been raised such as copyright, so that the wider community can see them and discuss them at a deletion request if anyone still thinks they should be deleted. It doesn't help that they were deleted with no explanation as to why they were considered beyond scope. Admins should refrain from speedily deleting files as beyond scope except where completely obvious and where they do, an explanation of why the file is beyond scope would be most helpful. Adambro (talk) 18:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, this porn wars episode is getting dumber and dumber. Both of these have to be the stupidest pictures I've ever seen. It's a woman (apparently) wearing a halloween costume - one in the shower and one not. Again I have no clue what sort of educational value these could possibly have! Petplay is supposed to be sex-related but these pictures are as un-sexual as you can get. I can understand the two images currently on w:Petplay - both clearly related to sex. But these other two here are just absurd. Wknight94 talk 18:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
w:Animal roleplay says it can "be either a non-sexual or an erotic sexual role-play". Anyway, I can't claim to be an expert on this or many other subjects so it is much better for the images to be restored so that if anyone does suggest they are deleted, others in the community who may be more familiar with these subjects can offer their views. The various WMF projects cover a massive range of subjects. Admins have got to be careful not to try to judge the value of an image based upon their own knowledge. Unless it is obvious, and the discussion above suggests this isn't such a case, admins shouldn't speedily delete and instead nominate for deletion. Adambro (talk) 19:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am in full agreement with Adambro's remarks above. In my humble opinion the behaviour documented by the file is just absurd, but then it's equally absurd to be trying to evaluate a file without being able to actually see it. Also, my opinion that the behaviour is absurd and even perhaps hilarious - "Bondage dog mask from Ukrainian Artisan "Bob Basset". This mask locks on from the back with a heavy brass padlock. The flap, locked and bolted over a hidden zipper beneath can only be unzipped with pliers. The zipper is tucked inside the mask from behind where the person inside can not get to it without help. Once this mask is on, the wearer is helpless to remove it."[!] - does not mean that the image itself has no value as a record of human behaviour. Should never have been Speedied. Anatiomaros (talk) 22:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Cc-by-sa-2.0/fr

[edit]

It contains an archive of legally binding terms. It is important that we can access it in order to provide evidence of which terms were agreed by the uploaders or copyright owners. The history tabs of license templates should always remain open. For legal documentation reasons. Teofilo (talk) 09:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment That's not the legally binding terms, its the human-readable version. The legally binding terms that are relevant to someone using that template are these. That said, there is no harm in restoring either.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. In the past, Wikimedia commons used to mix up countries and languages. It is not as simple as you say. Anyway I need to access the history tab of that template in order to check what you say. I think I remember that some time ago, that template used to provide links to the Creative Commons license legal code for the French territory (not the French language version of the generic CC-By-Sa 2.0). Perhaps I am wrong, but to provide evidence that I am wrong, you must leave that history tab in open access. Teofilo (talk) 10:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done (insert usual "thought you were admin" response) Restored it. That page (and the new translatewiki-powered version of it) has always linked to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/deed.fr the French deed of the generic license and never http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/fr/ the French deed of the French license, so you were mistaken in this instance. I'd be concerned if your statement was accurate anywhere actually, as cc-by-2.0 is a different license to cc-by-2.0-fr.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is easy to say so with a history tab restored and the possibility to check. When you don't have access to the history tab, the mere template name "Template:Cc-by-sa-2.0/fr" could have meant something different. Thank you for the restoration. Teofilo (talk) 11:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done by Nilfanion. –Tryphon☂ 11:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tied Breasts under Shirt.jpg

[edit]

This cropped image was created following the Request for Deletion of its (terrible) parent image. The original image had one of those ghastly green MSPaint boxes over the face of the subject, so this crop removed the entire face and focused on the actual subject - the tying of the breasts. However, it was deleted as a "Derivative of a deleted work", which seems like terrible reasoning - pictures are often derived from deleted works because there is a way to derive them as to render the earlier issue moot. Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent" 17:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - I agree that the deletion was out of process, but I don't disagree with the outcome - this doesn't seem like a very useful image to me - it was not in use anywhere, low quality, doesn't really show that the breasts are tied. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Salim_ali_lake.jpg

[edit]

please undelete file Salim_ali_lake.jpg. It was being used by at least two artiles on wikipedia. Thankyou. Fuwad ca (talk) 10:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This file was deleted for being a copyright violation, not for being out of scope. It cannot be restored just because it would be useful. --Eusebius (talk) 10:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, per Eusebius. –Tryphon☂ 16:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Making Movies.svg

[edit]

This is a cd cover from Dire Straits. Judging by the cover it's simple enough and thus inelegible for copyright. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 03:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done and licence changed to PD-ineligible. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

Space Uk deletion article

[edit]

Dear Sirs,

I am new to Wikipedia and spent hours writing an article and figuring out how to upload it only to have it deleted?

I am very confused as to why my article under the heading Space UK was deleted. It was under " Session Musicians in the United Kingdom"

Space UK is a collective of the most prestigious Session Musicians in the UK. It is the same kind of outfit as The Allstars which you have accepted? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_AllStars

My article is no different to the one you accepted but has more information.

Can you please explain the difference as I am really upset by this.

Many thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Space uk (talk • contribs) 17:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This here is wikimedia commons. It's a repository for images and other media, which is used in the wikipedias. Please upload ur article at the english wikipedia; here's not the right place--DieBuche (talk) 17:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not done (the request goes for File:SPACE UK.pdf). Commons is not a place to "upload articles" but to upload files that you can use as a part of an article in other wikimedia projects such as en.wikipedia.org for illustration of articles. Uploading articles in pdf format is not the scope of Commons. Read Commons:First steps please for understanding what Commons is and what Commons not is. --Martin H. (talk) 17:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As an act of precaution I like to expand the used term "to upload files": Files that the copyright holder voluntarily released under a free license so that anyone (not only Wikipedia) can reuse it anywhere, anytime for every purpose including modification and commercial purposes. --Martin H. (talk) 17:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but that's not at all true: Commons hosts many PDFs in active use at Wikisource. If he wants it undeleted for purposes of copying it over to en-Wiki, there's no issues with that, though it should be deleted when done. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. The pdf contains nothing but wiki-text and they had a copy. The question was not to undelete to make a copy but a misunderstanding in how to post articles as see on en.wp help desk. Article was created in the meantime. --Martin H. (talk) 00:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Railway pictures of germany

[edit]

No reasons for deletion of this images. There is no right of the German Rail to forbid pictures with this licence. Liesel (talk) 14:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)‎[reply]

These images were speedy deleted per uploader request. The uploader was in violation of the house rules of the German Rail and feared legal repercussions. --Dschwen (talk) 16:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The uploader has only the fictional idea, that he was in violation of the house rules of the German Rail. There is no letter from the company against the uploader that he make a violation. Liesel (talk) 16:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Violation of house rules is not dependent on being notified of the violation, just like a crime is no less a crime if you get away with it. --Dschwen (talk) 16:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is this documented anywhere? I saw pictures of old houses in Italy deleted with similar reasoning - people complaining to and even threatening the uploader. Wknight94 talk 16:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There was a precedent on COM:FORUM. user:Iotatau received a letter from the German Railway. All that counts for me is that there is a credible threat scenario and that the uploader fears legal repercussions. In my opinion we should not make our users' lives miserable by clinging to content which could cause them problems. --Dschwen (talk) 16:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fought the Italy case for a few seconds but I ultimately agree. Same in this case if the threat appears to be real. Wknight94 talk 16:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let me add that this does not mean that we should go on a deletion rampage and purge commons of all pictures taken on German Railway property. There is no de:Recht am Bild der eigenen Sache (copyright through ownership of depicted objects) in Germany. The German Railway can only try to persecute violations of their house rules (as far as I know, but IANAL). As long as the uploaders are willing to take the risk it is their problem. Following this opinion there should be no legal risks for anyone but the uploaders. Deletions should only be performed at their direct request. Although it might be worth getting a professional opinion on that (Wikimedia Germany?). --Dschwen (talk) 16:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is it a crime under German law to take photographs for commercial use on private property without a permit? If not, what is the problem? Breaking the house rules are generally not punishable, and the land owner can in many countries (like Sweden), just ask the person to leave the property.--Ankara (talk) 17:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is a crime under German (and Dutch) law to think: http://flits102-126.flits.rug.nl/~erik/radikal/154/94.html. Erik Warmelink (talk) 20:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry did you have a translation? --Ankara (talk) 20:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Station rules and regulations of German Rail only know: "photo, film or television shoots for commercial purposes". A picture under a free license is no commercial purpose. The uploader has no will of a own commercial use. A free license is contrary to a commercial purpose. The intention of commercial purpose is "make money". A free license hadn't this intention. Liesel (talk) 17:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your interpretation of what a free license is is flawed. Commercial use must be permitted for files that are hosted on commons. --Dschwen (talk) 17:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thats a translation problem. In german "Gewerbliche Foto-, Film- und Fernsehaufnahmen" is not the same as "commercial use". Every picture I make on a station, is no commercial use. I've no intention to make money with it. The term "Gewerbliche Foto-, Film- und Fernsehaufnahmen" means explicitly a for-profit use of a professional. Liesel (talk) 17:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - while I agree the images are in scope, and while it is my (IANAL) opinion that Deutsche Bahn cannot enforce such rules unless the photographer signs a contract, deletion was by uploader request at the worry of legal action being taken. We should respect this and let the images be removed. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a absolut flawed decision. After this decision, must every German Rail be delete. Every uploader is in same situation. This is a subjective licentious decision. There is no legal action of the Deutsche Bahn against a uploader or a Commons. Whit this action, agreed the Commons-sysop, that the position of the Deutsche Bahn is right. They makes a legal decision without knowledge. Liesel (talk) 15:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. If an uploader feels they are at risk of a lawsuit, and they want their photos deleted for that reason, we should grant them that. I don't care about other german railway images - if their uploaders are happy, then that's fine by me. But this uploader is NOT happy, and we shouldn't be dicks about it. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]



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

File:ExorcisingCover3.PNG

[edit]

This file conforms to the copyrights and does not represent any copyright violation. Please do not delet it.

 Not done - file is a clear copyright violation. Unless you personally own the copyright to the original book this is a derivative work of an unfree image, and so is unfree itself. If you do own the copyright to the book cover then please email the OTRS team. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:BSF Logo.gif

[edit]

As I stated on the user page of EugeneZelenko, as I stated, I have permission to use the image from the original creator and the game's developer. AnotherDutchGuy (talk) 15:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. The image was clearly not eligible for PD-textlogo. While we appreciate that you say you have permission from the author, we need to see that permission. Please send an email to the OTRS team with this permission. At that point, feel free to reupload or ask for undeletion again. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Katy roberts animal rights pacifist.jpg

[edit]

I should like to request that the file katy_roberts_animal_rights_pacifist.JPG be considered for undeletion as I took the photograph myself and am happy for it to be used on Wikipedia, I am a photographer and am findinding it almost impossible finding out how to upload a photograph without encountering a problem with copyright, there should be a much simpler way to do this task! Chris192 (talk) 16:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - this hasn't actually been deleted yet. Please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Katy roberts animal rights pacifist.jpg. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ashley Taking a Shower Series

[edit]

Please undelete. Looks like a nice series from a professional photographer according to File:Ashley Taking a Shower 15.jpg. That request includes at least Files:Ashley Taking a Shower No. 01 to No.20.jpg (probably more?). File:A woman taking a shower.jpg depicts also Ashley, or? 78.55.66.249 23:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Not a good idea without OTRS approval. Too many privacy concerns as shown by this posting on foundation-l by User:DGG. - Stillwaterising (talk) 06:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: This was already discussed at COM:UDEL: Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive#File:Ashley Taking a Shower 16.jpg. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete I think this time Stillwaterising is right. Flickr user photostream contains only these Ashley shower photos, and there are no sign of this "Tina Timpton" in the Web: [18]. This is somewhat suspicious and privacy concerns are legitimate. Trycatch (talk) 08:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose undeletion per Trycatch. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete I deleted most of these. I see insufficient proof of permission, copyright, and age, and scope concerns in that we don't need all 20. ++Lar: t/c 11:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The consent argument might be pertinent, but the "we don't need all 20" argument is not ! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then I assume you'll agree to delete the remaining File:Ashley Taking a Shower 15.jpg then? Wknight94 talk 11:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No because I see no valid reason to do so. The quality is good, and it illustrates an aspect of human life very well. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How does the consent argument apply to all of the images except 15? Wknight94 talk 18:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Indeed THAT is a good point. I had tought the pictures were proposed on the model's own Flickr profile, but the profile description seems really dubious : "I am a photographer, I try and do professional shoots yet sometimes also take some photos for friends"... and strangely there's only pictures of this woman in shower... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 07:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I would say, "Ashley" are at least 2 different women, maybe 3: see google cache. After undeletion some of these files should be renamed. 78.55.160.216 09:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's easier to look at the Flickr gallery and I see no reason to think there are different women in this set. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose per above legal reasons. - Stillwaterising (talk) 11:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absent any legal issues, I think that 11-13 are probably worth keeping, but not convinced by the others. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - while I still think that 11-13 are possibly worth keeping, consensus seems to be to keep them all deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Rachelle Lefevre and Cam Gigandet.jpg

[edit]

The reason this was deleted was based on past experiences from the flickr account. It was grouped with other images that had copyright issues and not even remotely researched before deletion to see if it was problematic. It was verified from flickr upon uploading and has been deleted due to speculation which cannot be proved. It has no issues, i know of this because i also saw the previous problems and looked for it myself and found no other sources for it beofre bringing it to wikimedia. It is a just photo taken from a public event by the flickr account user. There was no reason for it to be deleted. --Stripy Socks (talk) 19:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The image concerned can be seen on Flickr here. Looks like Flickr washing to me. I note that the only upload by this user not credited to the same Flickr account (File:Gina Yashere satnd up comedy photo.jpg) was deleted as a copyright violation. I also note that with one exception, the images have been upload here on the same day they were uploaded to Flickr. Coincidence? Perhaps. I note that Stripy Socks says he knows the owner of the Flickr account (well, I had assumed that) and that they can get email confirmation of permission. Well, if that is the case and such permission is satisfactory then I would be delighted to be proved wrong as to my concerns about these images. In the meantime, the precautionary principle says they should be deleted. Adambro (talk) 19:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One note before i reply: I am a She not a He and i was personally insulted by that assumption, but it was not your fault Admabro, so no worries though i request that you use 'they' instead of assuming genders. I do personally know the owner and i can gain email permission once i learn how to do so but it should be unneccessary and i wait for another verdict other than someone biased to the cause, namely Adambro and I. I can request the permission, but i would prefer not to be forced to. The images are uploaded here the same day they are uploaded to flickr is because i know the owner, i see no trouble in that and the images deemed useful to the causes i wanted them to serve and so waiting seemed pointless and tedious. As for the Gina Yashere file, i was told it was deleted because it was a screenshot from something, it was not taken as a screencap and i could not see the source provided to prove it as a violation because my firewalls and anti-virus software would not allow me to as it was identified as a contaminated website. --Stripy Socks (talk) 19:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Gina Yashere file you uploaded was a screengrab from this youtube video. Lupo 20:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep  Deleted. File:Rachelle Lefevre and Cam Gigandet.jpg was this image. Uploaded at Flickr on April 27, 2010, and on the same day here by User:Stripy Socks. The Twilight session at SDCC 2008 was on July 25, 2008. The Flickr account has only four images, in my opinion all copyvios. Two are proven copyvios:
Can you spell "flickrwashing"? We don't trust such Flickr users, and it's now up to them to prove that this image is not a copyvio, if they or you want to see it here. But I'm afraid given the poor track record of that Flickr user a simple e-mail won't do. I'd say make them provide their full series of photos from that event (unlikely they only took that one shot at SDCC, isn't it?), in full-res and with all metadata intact. Nonsense like this and trying to hide embarrassing earlier discussions doesn't help. BTW, the upload log of WhereTheLinesOverlapXX at the English Wikipedia also consists of mostly copyvios. Lupo 20:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I cant believe i have to write this all out again due to editing conflicts:  Support Yes there are copyvios on that account, and yes the track record is not so good. But this is still merely a assumption of trust. You cannot prove that it is a copyright violation because it is not one. If you wish to prove me wrong then Find. A. Source. That. Proves. That. Instead of using previous additions as an offense tactic. Why should i provide evidence when you cant yourself? I have explained why the photos are uploaded here the same day as they are to flickr. As for the picture under scrutiny, i saw that it could be used on a page, i knew we had one that would serve well and so aksed for it to be put on flickr so i could put it here. I did not upload it straight here because although i know the owner, i do not own the photo they took. Do not attack WhereTheLinesOverlapXX, as you can clearly see from the wikipedia page they have withdrawn from editing and i notified them of the goings on here and gave them a chance to defend themself. Yes the paragraph may seem a bit pathetic but they are not well and i cannot help that. I should not have to provide you with the entire collection of photos from the event because how can i be sure, and asure the owner that these images will not be spread around even if we did copyright those ones? If anything, this conversation has provided evidence that if something is copyrighted (and the image under scrutiny IS NOT) that does not stop physical distribution. thats not fair. and thats not legal. The image was reviewed upon being uploaded here and they found no issues with it because there are none. Yet, somehow you have managed to create a problem through your own opinion of the user and the flickr account. It seems incredibly POV to me. The Gina Yashere picture is not on the flickr account, that was my personal mistake made during some of my first days on these sites. The other Rachelle picture was accepted as a copyvio, as was the Nikki Reed picture. I would also like to bring to your attention that the copyvio Rachelle picture was uploaded to flickr, uploaded here by me, we realised I'd got it wrong and it was WTLO who nominated it for deletion. We know when we get this wrong on purpose. The conversation from the WTLO talk page you so boldly submitted is a battle for respect over sarcasm and snarky comments. The fact that it was a copyvio was accepted at the begninng and in four emails to and from this site from a hotmail account. A track record means nothing. It is in the past, and although cannot be changed, can be improved. Which this photo is an example of. Instead of getting me to prove its not a copyvio, why dont you try and prove it is using hard evidence youve found yourself? I have given the option of email verification and permission, that option is still open. I do not know any of your whereabouts but i believe that possibly due to differences in GMT timezones, i will soon not be able to respond to anything you insert here. That however is not me backing down, or accepting defeat, i will merely not be able to respond. --Stripy Socks (talk) 21:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to type it out again; the edit conflict page shows you your text. The fact is it's incredibly hard to prove that someone's photo is their own; it could have come from any number of sources that are hard or even impossible to check. So we do what professional editors do; we assume that people are honest unless it's pretty clear the pictures aren't theirs. But the flipside is, since cheating is so easy and proving it so hard, questionable photos from someone with a bad history don't get the benefit of the doubt. Even if we can't prove it, that still doesn't mean that it's not a copyvio. Track records mean something, here as elsewhere in real life.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lol, User:WhereTheLinesOverlapXX was scared once because I identified him Flickrwashing from HereWeGoAgain..! on flickr. Some strange chatter started. However, the user who complaints here is also blatantly flickr washing from the same account, not even fictional but evidently, see File:Alia Shawkat (Got a Room).jpg, I will write a comment for those admins here who not know flickr in the deleted revisions. Conclusion is simple: User talk:Stripy Socks is a blatant sockpuppet of User:WhereTheLinesOverlapXX. Im supprised how someone can act so bad on this project and uploading clearly stolen files under abuse of not only Commons but also Flickr and then protestinga against deletion with this endless chatter above. I will block both of their accounts. I not yet ran a Checkuser, but Im not reluctant to do it to prevent this kind of idiotic abuse on Commons - not only copyright violation but also wasting our time here. --Martin H. (talk) 03:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • This case is realy strange. A sockpuppet is flickrwashing from an flickr account, the person who originally flickrwashed from the same account, the sockmaster, nominates the image for deletion. The file is deleted and the sockpuppet requests undeletion and starting this posting here... Unbeliveable, but true, I now checked it with Checkuser. --Martin H. (talk) 03:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

closed. Obvious flickrwashing, thanks @Lupo for searching for the correct source although the case was obvious already before. --Martin H. (talk) 08:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Woman in Bondage.png

[edit]

Please undelete this file, and also this File:Man in Toecuffs.png and this: File:Jana and Nella in an Intimate Moment.jpg. They are all from the Fran Rogers deletionpool, speeded as (Out of project scope). Probably I will find some more of these. You may help 78.55.62.206 14:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC) This request was deleted without any comment by User:Wknight94. Lets see what others think about this request.Nemissimo (talk) 15:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why say "without comment"? I clearly stated the reason - it's an IP sock of a banned user. Wknight94 talk 15:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Restore the 2nd one certainly, 3rd one I'm not sure I see an educational purpose for, 1st one I'm ambivalent about due to possible personality rights issues. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Support - Although I can see only the first one: google image search for Woman_in_Bondage.png Wknight94, that was not nice of you. --Saibo (Δ) 17:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You nominate pictures of cats for deletion in retaliation for votes on pornography. I'm not much interested in your opinion of "nice". Wknight94 talk 18:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I have no problem with you not paying attention to me. Probably others will be interested in my opinion. Regarding the cats: seems you have not understood me there. --Saibo (Δ) 18:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I understand fine - revenge nomination. Wknight94 talk 19:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's start this again. There are three images here up for undeletion:

None were used on any projects, and while the UDEL was started by someone who is banned I think we should discuss this. I am personally in favour of undeleting the toecuffs, neutral about jana and nella as I can't see an educational use, and neutral about Woman in Bondage as while I can see an educational use I also see personality rights issues and wonder whethe we don't have better examples of this. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done - I leave it to someone else to decide on a proper name for the images. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Urolagnia male self-piss.jpg

[edit]

The File was delete without any discussion and the reason "Commons is not an amateur porn site". Actually it was not just amateur porn but usefull to illustrate Urolagnia and there is no similar picture. --Nicor (talk) 22:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done - was subject of a DR recently and resolved as keep, so should not have been speedied. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2010-05&oldid=113105970"