Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2010-06

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.

File:Self-licking.jpg

[edit]

Undeletion of:

Consensus to keep Commons:Deletion requests/File:Self-licking.jpg. --Ankara (talk) 10:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain the legal problem. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No clarity on age - could easily be underage. --Herby talk thyme 10:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Commons has lots of images of children. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not licking their breasts tho... --Herby talk thyme 10:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But is licking one's breasts a problem? (A legal problem, I mean.) /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete - not in use beyond a userpage, no obvious way it could be useful. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose undelete. Out of COM:SCOPE and very low-quality. Model age issue is icing on the cake. Previous DR was flawed in that it was framed as a COM:PORN issue. Wrong rationales give wrong results. Wknight94 talk 11:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment It's a britt suza image btw, so the status it is equal to all the other images that we have of her. Not that I see a use for this image and neither is it a quality image. TheDJ (talk) 12:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS. seems like britt removed all her pictures and her account from flickr. Or someone mailed flickr with "childporn" concerns, and flickr took it offline precautionary. TheDJ (talk) 12:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That probably makes all of them open to question at best - thanks for the info. --Herby talk thyme 12:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so this is the image that Tiptoety oversighted as "Child porn" - not a child, not porn,  Support undeletion. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Out of scope. Not being used for education. Jehochman (talk) 12:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, time out here. I expect better from ALL of you - Multichil, don't undelete when consensus has yet to be established, Kuiper don't attack Bastique, Bastique don't retaliate. Now, the three of you should either apologise and get on with things, or just not post on this UDEL again. Let's have a consensus-building debate based on the merits of the image, not on personal attacks. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the above concerns are valid, then these images bear review as well. –SJ+ 22:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - I expressed a similar view above. --Herby talk thyme 08:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there is no externally validated rationale for inclusion of these controversial images. They are not notable in the own right, and attempting to shoehorn these images into commons on the grounds that they are in some way "educational" is a half-baked argument that provides no meaningful context, since an image on its own cannot be used as an educational tool. The inclusion of controversial imagery is a redflag issue, and require a strong source of external validation to provide a rationale for inclusion. It occurs to me that unless some form of external validation is found, then the differences of editorial opinion will never be resolved, nor will the wheelwarring cease. --Gavin Collins (talk) 02:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment per Mattbuck definitely. My views on this have nothing to do with censorship. The reason for the original deletion may or may not be questionable. However we now have the opportunity to apply some sensible Commons consensus on this. My views are as above - this file is legally questionable and should remain deleted --Herby talk thyme 07:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete! Clear and descriptive Picture. Widescreen ® 13:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. Age question was adequately resolved. We have no other image depicting this subject - educational use is marginal (depicting the licking of one's own nipple) but also clear. Not in use, but may be useful in the future. Dcoetzee (talk) 15:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:POV_oral_sex.png

[edit]

File:POV_oral_sex.png not in google (switch SafeSearch off) was deleted. It was in use.
ABF deleted with reason: "The image is not in use, matches COM:PORN and will not be used. There are enough "controversial" images up here on commons, this one has not got any educational sense (->SCOPE)."
The contrary is true: the image was in use! It does not match COM:PORN (see below). There is only one photograph left on commons showing fellatio by a woman. The Category is also linked by the {{commonscat}} link in de:Fellatio (probably also by the articles in other languages).
COM:PORN: "We may remove low-quality pornographic images that do not contribute anything educationally useful to our existing collection of images." Please undelete. --Saibo (Δ) 19:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To quell some confusion, this file was deleted after a deletion request, it was not speedied. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should have made it a bit clearer, but in fact I linked the DR discussion above: "ABF deleted with reason". --22:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
There is a need to have pictures on all topics (not censored!) for our educational and knowledge projects. If it's porn or not does not matter. We are not still living in the middle ages... I am sad of all this time wasting in "naked-people-oh-my-god!" discussions. --Saibo (Δ) 22:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, skip the direct "in use" - the other argument is sufficient. It is of not a bad quality and we have very few pictures - contrary to commons's aim. Think of the commonscat links in the wikipedia articles. --Saibo (Δ) 21:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. Obviously in scope as a photographic depiction of fellatio, whether or not in use. There is no ready substitute for it because we have very few photos of fellatio. However it is low quality - a higher quality photograph would be better. Original deletion discussion had borderline outcome. Max Rebo Band is admonished to not add images to loosely-related articles to attempt to prevent deletion. Dcoetzee (talk) 15:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pictures of sex show

[edit]

I've added the speedy deletion templates to those files myself during the recent fiasco, when I thought that we had to follow the record-keeping law. Now that eveything has calmed down, I realize that there was no reason to delete them (or at least it deserved a DR if someone wnated to question them). So please restore - and feel free to launch a DR if you want. NB : most of them were from this Flickr gallery (I'm not sure about the last one, maybe it's another problem...) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Restored for now. →Nagy 22:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:2P rezonator AFP.PNG

[edit]

Deleted after Commons:Deletion requests/File:2P rezonator AFP.PNG. No copyright problem. In scope, in the same way that File:FILTR AFP.PNG is in scope. The problem is that currently the software will not render these files, because they have too many pixels (but few kbytes). These images can be redrawn as svg. But that is not a reason to delete such contributions. Size limits on rendering come and go; currently, several gif-files that did render before, give error messages. But all the energy seems to go into discussing sex. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Restored. →Nagy 22:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Speedy'ed files with {military Insignia}

[edit]

File:UK-Navy-OF1.gif and some others (50? I did not count [1]) were speedy'ed as "no source or license since May 2007". They were tagged with {{Military Insignia}} which states that:

"If an image was uploaded with this template after 8 May 2007, it should be tagged with {{subst:nld}}. If the copyright status of images tagged with this template and uploaded cannot be confirmed as free, they should be listed for deletion."

So speedy is not a valid oprion here. Files were old so they should be nominated for deletion if it is not possible to find proper source and license.

There is a lot of files like these - Category:PD tag needs updating has 8,456 files that need an update. Problem is that it takes time to fix and there is to few users to fix all problems on Commons here and now. I think it is a bad idea just to speedy them all. --MGA73 (talk) 10:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose These files have had 2 years for proper licensing to be found. Someone properly marked them as not having proper licensing and someone else properly deleted them as such. I would support undeletion only if you are able to supply proper licensing. If you cannot then undeleting them is a waste of everybody's time as they will get redeleted again shortly. -Nard the Bard 14:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These were files uploaded prior to the 2007 date (i.e. before the tag in question was deprecated). So, it isn't sure if anyone really has tried to find licensing. I'm sure many would still have to be deleted though. I think the nominator is saying these should go through a DR and not be speedied. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The template says the files will only be deleted after a DR. We need more users to help cleanup. I'm sure that there is people out there who has some of these on their to-do-list but as with a speedy they get no warning that it is time to look at excactly these files. We can't just speedy +8,000 files when template says they are safe until someone makes a DR. --MGA73 (talk) 17:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IMO there has been a procedural irregularity in this matter. It wasn't clear that there was a two-year deadline for finding licensing etc. The template isn't crystal clear enough and it's very annoying to suddenly discover that this and that image have been deleted on Wikimedia. The bot CommonsDelinker automatically removes dead image links on Wikipedia, why couldn't there be a bot inserting "The xx image is due for deletion because of yy" on the relevant pages. On the English Wikipedia you'll get a warning for the local fair-use images. At the moment it isn't very user-friendly and people might start storing images on the local Wikis. --Necessary Evil (talk) 22:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
oppose yeah there have been a mistake by deleting them all as speedy but the uses are removed now so undeletion isn't going to help a lot, I oppose to undelete for a dr but I do support undeletion if somebody finds a good source en license. Huib talk 17:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah but not all users are admins and can see the deleted images and pages. So how on earth are they going to find out if image could be saved? --MGA73 (talk) 17:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Besides we have [2] that can help admins that delete images by a mistake. --MGA73 (talk) 17:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support There are many old files (2005-2006) with source and license tagging irregularities. However deleting them is not the way to go. Sv1xv (talk) 18:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support We have processes for proper deletion of images, we entrust admins to use the tools following the rules and not take shortcuts for other reasons. Allowing this just sets a precedent and more such deletions will probably follow. There was obviously no urgency in the need for deletion (2 years?), a mistake has been made and needs to be reverted. It is obvious that none of the images are going to have licensing found once they have been deleted because most of us (the people who do the majority of the work here due to shear numbers) are not admins, and can no longer see the images. --Tony Wills (talk) 19:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Deletion was way out of process. Deleter should be desysopped, depending on follow-up.--Elvey (talk) 18:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support: We need to get rid of deprecated licenses, that for sure. But speedying all those 8000+ files without even making a DR and notifying the original uploaders isn't appropriate. If there's a specific problem with one of these files or with some of them, they should either be tagged with {{subst:nld}} or brought to a DR. I think it's important that the users who did this in good faith aren't passed over. It's still Humans who edit this media database. Fed up users can do the Commons more harm than 0.16 % of possibly unfree files which are marked for reusers that they might not be free. --The Evil IP address (talk) 12:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support undeletion -- it is essential that those who enforce our policies strictly comply with both the spirit and the letter of it. Those who point out that the image was uploaded when the liscense was valid make an excellent point, and that proper notice, not a speedy deletion, was the appropriated response when that liscense was deprecated. Geo Swan (talk) 14:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support} reasons as stated above, & see my comments in the section below: "The general problem" Lx 121 (talk) 04:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support don't speedily delete old files. Erik Warmelink (talk) 20:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The general problem

[edit]

A directly related problem, that we may further discuss on Commons_talk:Licensing: Someone uploads a file using a valid license tag. Two years later the license tag becomes deprecated, like {{PD}} or {{Military Insignia}}. Another 2 years later there is a deletion request based on the invalid license tag. However the uploader is no longer active, so nobody can change the licensing, unless the original tag is a flavor of PD. What do we do then? Sv1xv (talk) 19:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the uploader isn't there anymore, someone else can add a license or source, but will be very harder. But regardless, we delete away. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 08:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So you regardless delete away ? I am really sorry to see this demonstration of copyright extremism. Sv1xv (talk) 16:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It happens all of the time. Plus, anyone can change the license of an image (not just the uploader) if we have what could fit next. For example in these sets of images, I found one image of a Russian Insignia; it was changed to where it was PD in Russia for being a state symbol. But I checked the talk page of the uploaders; they been told before in 2007, 1008 and 2009 and still done nothing. It happens on other projects too; we cannot let uploader's absence hurt us. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this. Of course if some obviously public domain image has a wrong license tag, I do change it as well. No problem there. It becomes more complicated, however, when an image may still be copyrighted.
However I am worried by the phrase "But regardless, we delete away". What exactly do you mean? Sv1xv (talk) 17:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless if the uploader is here or not, we still delete images if they do not respond. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I strongly oppose this view. It is exteme deletionism. Sv1xv (talk) 17:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because they cannot respond? User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because you delete useful images based on a technical problem for which the uploader was not responsible. These issues could have been easily resolved when the tag became deprecated. Sv1xv (talk) 18:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Technical problem? Since when is licensing just a "technical problem"? The original military Insignia template falsely claimed military Insignia was copyright free, and people uploaded stuff from all over the web on that basis. Many of them can be relicensed (PD-US-Gov, PD-shape, etc) but the ones that cannot be are not free and should be deleted. It would take you less time to re-create these files with inkscape than what it would take to track down sources and licenses for these files or argue about them. -Nard the Bard 19:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You accuse the uploaders for a problem which was caused inadvertently by Commons housekeepers. The contributors who uploaded the images were (mis)guided to believe that {{Military Insignia}} was a valid license. They thought that they were releasing their work in the public domain. I believe I am clear enough. Sv1xv (talk) 19:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a solution could be to recreate the lost images. But if some admin just decides to nuke them with no warning it is much harder for others to make a new version. It would be better and "after the book" to make a DR. That way others have a chance to comment or make a new file if they want to. When the file is deleted only admins can see the file. Anyway I can't understand why we do not have the time to do it right. If the file has been her for two years it could be here a week more while things are checked properly.
I say undelete and make check if relicense is possible or if not make a DR. --MGA73 (talk) 19:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Seems they have not read the "conditions". It says that a DR is the proper thing to do. Besides uplader was not warned! --MGA73 (talk) 04:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken a look at some of the deleted files: File:UK-Navy-OF1.gif, File:IT-Army-OF2a.gif, File:POR-Army-OF3.gif, and File:Bp aut hptm schulter.gif. All these files were speedy deleted without any warning to the respective uploaders and without anyone tagging these images first. Three of these candidates can be considered as {{PD-shape}} and the last one is most likely a case of “amtliches Werk”, i.e. {{PD-AustrianGov}} could apply. I agree with MGA73 and others that this calls for a DR which allows the uploaders and others to inspect the individual cases, obtaining missing documentation, and switching to proper licenses as far as possible. It is correct that this is long overdue and many of these files cannot be kept at Commons but we shall follow proper procedure. I suggest that

  • all the speedy deleted files will be temporarily undeleted,
  • one or more deletion requests will be filed for them (it might be useful to group them into countries),
  • a proper deadline will be set (I suggest one or two months), and
  • all uploaders will be notified and all will be invited (possibly through the village pump and the other forums) such that we have plenty of opportunity to save what can be saved.

--AFBorchert (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • 2 obvious points:

1. we need to track (& check/pay attention to) alterations in the permissions/licensing of files, & be able to differentiate between changes made by the uploader & changes made by 3rd parties (& reasons for each)

2. if a license tag is valid at the time of the original upload, then it should not cause the file to be nominated for deletion, if the tag is later deprecated/altered/eliminated/etc.

the only valid exception to this rule, that i can think of, would be if/when there is a change in the legal status of the file, i.e.: alterations in relevant copyright law.

otherwise such files should never be deleted for this reason!

the fact that this is being done would seem to constitute a fairly major bug/flaw/loophole in commons procedures.

Lx 121 (talk) 04:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Support suggestion by AFBorchert -- if there are admins willing to set it up and follow through. What's important is, after all, not that images are to be deleted, but that copyright violations are to be deleted and all other useful material kept. Now Zscout brought attention to the issue so it should be possible to resolve in the way suggested by AFBorchert.
Fred J (talk) 11:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would it not be possible for a bot to look at all the images that use deprecated license templates and compare the upload date with the deprecation date. If the upload date is before the deprecation date (category A), the bot should notify the uploader and mark the image as:

  • Needing it's copyright status investigating (so as to warn reusers)
  • Explicitly not eligible for speedy deletion.

If the upload date is the same as or later than the deprecation date (category B), then the bot should notify the uploader and mark the image as:

  • Needing it's copyright status investigating (so as to warn reusers)
  • Explicitly not eligible for speedy deletion until after $TIME (where $TIME is 7×24 hours after the timestamp of the bots edit to the uploader's talk page)
  • Being strongly discouraged from being speedily deleted if it is possible that it might be public domain or freely licensed.

There should be a central list of all such deprecated templates, and the bot should keep a list of images using each template noting which are category A and which category B (with the latter including the $TIME). Also noted on the page should be any images which are nominated for (speedy) deletion, updated in real time1 so that users need only watchlist one page rather than thousands. When the page for a template is set up the bot should place a notice on the deprecated template's talk page and possibly the talk page of every contributior to the template and/or its talk. (1 I'm not a bot programmer, but I'd have thought it possible for a bot to examine every edit to the files using deprecated templates and check for the addition of any deletion templates). Thryduulf (talk) 02:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:K Mark IIIA RFM 10208 Andy Hamilton First Class.JPG

[edit]

I would ask that another administrator considers undeleting this image. It was deleted by Zirland (talk · contribs) in March and I've asked him to consider restoring it but had no response. The reason given for deletion was "In category Other speedy deletions; no permission". It was deleted after CrossHouses (talk · contribs) added {{Speedydelete}} with the comment that "Andy Hamilton does not wish his image to be posted on any non Chiltern Railways sites". Other comments from CrossHouses regarding this include that "Andy Hamilton did not give permission for his image to be used here" and "Andy Hamilton wishes this image be removed. He does not wish his image to be used on Wikipedia, Commons or any other non Wrexham & Shropshire, Chiltern Railways or National Rail site". It is not clear why Mr Hamilton approached CrossHouses regarding this.

I don't think speedy deletion was appropriate here. Mr Hamilton is the Managing Director of Wrexham & Shropshire and doesn't seem to have a problem with his image being displayed on the company's website. I think the legitimate public interest in this company and so, the educational value of an image of its MD, outweighs a personal preference as to where an image of him appears. It would also be preferable to have something more solid than just a comment from CrossHouses about this. Since this photo was hardly an invasion of privacy, I think any concerns or requests from Mr Hamilton should have been discussed properly in a deletion request. Adambro (talk) 17:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Support - I think that a train qualifies as a public place, so therefore he would have no expectation of privacy. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Even if this were a private place I'd support retaining the image, as long as there is no substitute. It is a simple depiction of a person posing for a camera in a suit, and can't conceivably have any negative effect on the person depicted. Speedy deletion was also out of process. Dcoetzee (talk) 15:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done -mattbuck (Talk) 16:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Systems in Blue logo.png

[edit]

This logo was deleted as copyvio. The logo is simply enough for {{PD-ineligible}}, it's just a bunch of boxes and some text. --Diego Grez return fire 15:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I received a copyvio warn. I know how does Commons works, in relation to copyright. I uploaded it because it is way too simple to be copyrighted. --Diego Grez return fire 16:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done--DieBuche (talk) 16:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Oneupweb digital.jpg

[edit]

Request for undeletion Deleted Oneupweb digital.jpg

On Trademarks: "Commons hosts many images of trademarks, and as long as they do not violate any copyright (eg because they are too simple to acquire copyright protection, or are old enough that copyright protection has expired), they are OK here. That applies even though certain commercial use of this material may be trademark infringement." From Commons:Trademarks

Purpose/Intention of image: Used in the infobox on an article about the company (Oneupweb). No free version known.

HershByTheBay (talk) 14:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment The logo is not so simple that it doesn't acquire copyright, nor is it old enough. You might want to re-upload the file on en: wikipedia with a fair use rationale. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Thanks for clarifying. I will have to wait until I have the appropriate account status to do so. --HershByTheBay (talk) 18:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done -mattbuck (Talk) 19:17, 6 June 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 took this photograph and have released it into the public domain and request that it be undeleted. It was used in the Spindles Farm article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris192 (talk • contribs)

Image deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Katy roberts animal rights pacifist.jpg

✓ Done - OTRS was received after deletion request filed, this does not appear to have been taken into account when image was deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Precum1.JPG

[edit]

The Wikipedia article w:pre-ejaculate used to have two pictures showing variations in how pre-ejaculate fluid appears. Both pictures showed only the end of the penis and the pre-ejaculate fluid was the focus; they were educational in context of the Wikipedia article and not gratuitous.

One of these pictures, precum1.jpg, was deleted last month as "amateur porn". I dispute this categorization and request its undeletion. Lyrl (talk) 01:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done, and images restored. Please feel free to DR this. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Commons:Deletion requests/Images in Category:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

[edit]

Vandalism by a guy who has left commons. Not one single word why he has deleted the whole gallery. Incredible. Currently he tries to get his tools back. 92.227.9.26 11:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From what I understand, PETA did not give permission for people to upload these photos under a free licence. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, some PETA person did, but it was thought questionable whether that person had the authority to do that. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tabercil has emailed with a PETA-employee, who has not understand his question or was afraid to make a mistake. But in the first DR, Mutter Erde has given this wise advice to Kanonkas: ...Instead of your versions - these pics are all properly attributed to their photographers. You have reuploaded bigger versions of some of them from somewhere else, copied&pasted my descriptions (by the way: with my source! (peta.de)), but without mentioning the photographers. That`s the difference. For the rest: Ask Shankbone, Newkirk, or one the photographers. They are all living. PS: Might be interesting for all to know, what an OTRS ticket really means. Mutter Erde (Diskussion) 11:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC). One these photographers could give the right answer 92.227.9.26 20:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This I would call properly closed out, and I'm the chap who emailed them so I should know. The ultimate stumbling block was the fact that a proper license for Commons requires commercial reuse, and they could not (or would not) provide this release. Tabercil (talk) 13:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done


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

Please undelete Pictures

[edit]

Please undelete the following pictures immediately:

Thank you.

When reviewing please see user's talk page and this in particular. Apparently intended promotionally by someone working for the company. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 12:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Account was solely created to upload pictures of their products--DieBuche (talk) 13:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Aastra Technologies is a notable company. Now we have only one picture of their products, don't see anything wrong if somebody will upload more pictures. Trycatch (talk) 13:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete These are professional promotional images, distributed by the Aastra company under very precise licensing terms for press purposes only. File:Aastra_DECT_Telephone.jpg for instance is available here, with a click-through license. Without an OTRS confirmation from the Aastra company that they do indeed license these images under a free license we cannot keep these files. If such an OTRS confirmation should be received, then undelete of course. But until then, keep deleted. Lupo 13:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep subject to OTRS confirmation. I think we should be less hostile in situations like this. We need to realise that the WMF benefits from the many companies and other organisations which provide content under a free licence. We also all need to realise that promoting their products is likely to be part of the motivation for doing so. If the company wants to provide images like these, and that can be confirmed via OTRS, we should be grateful, it is mutually beneficial. We get more images relating to a subject that is notable, see w:Aastra Technologies, and the company benefits by enabling better images to be used on Wikipedia and the other projects, both on articles relating to the company and others. The focus here should be getting OTRS confirmation. Adambro (talk) 14:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but let them provide the OTRS release first before undeleting. Lupo 14:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, per Lupo; will be handled by OTRS, if they receive proper permission. –Tryphon☂ 08:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Roca para web.jpg

[edit]

The restriction of the rights in Flickr for the File Roca para web.jpg were modified to fullfil the requirements of your policies. PLese undo the delete process and reestablish the picture to the wikipedia entry for this Colombain poet. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxisimo (talk • contribs) 20:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The current license of http://www.flickr.com/photos/enmaxcarado/4505947228/ is CC-BY-NC 2.0, which is still not an acceptable license for Commons due to the NonCommercial restriction. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The correct filename is File:Roca para web.jpg. The license for http://www.flickr.com/photos/enmaxcarado/4505947228/ is still non-free. Please read Commons:Flickr files (or at least the box at the top of that page). —LX (talk, contribs) 18:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, non-free license on flickr. –Tryphon☂ 09:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

PA760.jpg

[edit]

Hi, I tried uploading an image of PA 760's southern terminus to use on the Pennsylvania Route 760 page on Wikipedia, and it deleted the image. Any assistance please? Jgera5 (talk) 21:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't appear to have any deleted contributions here on Commons. Perhaps you uploaded it to Wikipedia? -mattbuck (Talk) 21:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - could not find file to undelete. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:El puerto playa lapaz.jpg

[edit]

File was deleted as a copyvio in 2008, but was uploaded (and still is) at en: wikipedia, seemingly by the creator/owner in 2006. The photo now has an all rights reserved on it in picasaweb, but as uploader name is same as uploader name to picasaweb, I'm assuming this was uploaded with a correct license at the time which cannot be revoked. Not that it's a masterpiece of photography, but it does illustrate the subject (and the original is still in use as the main image on en:La Libertad, La Libertad). -- Deadstar (msg) 12:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.. when in doubt, try to confirm via OTRS, maybe? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have sent an email to the address mentioned on the file. -- Deadstar (msg) 07:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No reply (yet). -- Deadstar (msg) 16:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, will be handled by OTRS. –Tryphon☂ 09:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

Undelete Opera 10.5 screenshot Mandriva.png!

[edit]

Image:Opera 10.5 screenshot Mandriva.png

The software is free, Opera Software wants to have their browser image on the different Wikipedia languages for identification and educational purposes! Please undelete this file, I think it's important to people see Opera browser user interface. It's the same as people can see Firefox, Chrome and other browsers. I'm sure I'm not doing anything wrong, the image has no copyrighted icons like the Google search favicon or Windows appearance as long it's on Mandriva Linux... Common wikipedians, please accept this file to increase the visual knowledge of your readers. --Rafaelluik (talk) 16:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment This image was deleted by me because although it runs on Linux (and many other OS) it's closed source, proprietary software fully copyrighted by Opera Software ASA. Commons:Screenshots#Web_browsers explisitly forbids to upload screenshots of it --Justass (talk) 16:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment "Common proprietary web browsers include Microsoft Internet Explorer, Safari and Opera. Screenshots of these are never permissible on Commons if they show the browser's user interface." So, how can Internet Explorer and Safari has screenshots??? What do I need to do? You said I need a written permission by e-mail but I don't know how to get it or show it to Wikipedia... --Rafaelluik (talk) 17:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They can't and should be speedy deleted if there are any around. I was referring to the permission from copyright holder - Opera Software ASA in this case - but chases to get it is from extremely unlikely to impossible --Justass (talk) 19:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there are one for Safari here on Deutsch Wikipedia... http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safari_(Browser) It should be deleted??? --Rafaelluik (talk) 20:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If u want to use them on en.wiki, upload them there & tag them as Fair use--DieBuche (talk) 20:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The English Wikipedia already has a screenshot, I don't want to change it. I want to use a screenshot in the Portuguese Wikipedia, what should I do??? --Rafaelluik (talk) 22:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Portuguese Wikipedia, according to Meta, accepts non-free content. I don't speak Portuguese however, so I don't know the process for this. You should consult the general discussion forum on the Portuguese Wikipedia. Dcoetzee (talk) 15:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how to do this....... ;x --Rafaelluik (talk) 19:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Rafael wikipedia in portuguese does not upload files locally a long time. The community decide to use the free files Commons has and upload here too. So we have to respect Commons policies. But, recently the community accepted to allow the exemption doctrine. Something like the fair use on Wiki-en. All you have to do is wait a little more, until the project starts uploading locally again. Mizunoryu (talk) 01:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, screenshot of a non-free software. –Tryphon☂ 08:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Millennium line logo.svg

[edit]

Calligraphy, typography, et cetera cannot be copyrighted in the United States, per se, and I'm doubtful protection is extended for it in Canada (see here). If Canada does recognize originality in simple "script" logos, I suggest transferring to the English Wikipedia under United States public domain. Sincerely, Blurpeace 21:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done, agreed. If anyone feels this fails {{PD-textlogo}}, please take it to DR. Bidgee (talk) 04:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

Please undelete.

[edit]

Hello,

I work directly with Adrianna Leon (on Wikipedia as Adrianne Leon) and I have attempted several times now to upload a picture that she owns and has sent to me to have uploaded. Each time it gets deleted and I would like to know what I am doing wrong. The picture belongs to her, it's of her, and as such there is no copyright to attach to it.

The file name is AdriannaLeon by Mangiello 2009.jpg or AdriannaLeon_by_Mangiello_2009.jpg.

Please advise.

Thank you kindly, Leslie Vent — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ateamcoordinator (talk • contribs) 01:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:AdriannaLeon by Mangiello 2009.jpg was deleted because you failed to provide correct and verifiable source information when you uploaded it using your other account, Ateamleslie. At that time, you stated that the source was "Personal", which is not verifiable, and you also claimed that you were the author of that file. That would mean you created the photograph yourself. Now you are saying it was sent to you.
Now, you also say that the file gets deleted "each time." Does that mean that you have uploaded it more than once? Have you been using additional user accounts for this?
Finally, you claim that the photograph has no copyright attached to it. All recently created creative works are subject to copyright. Appearing in a photograph or having a copy of a photograph in her possession does not make Ms Leon (or you) the copyright holder or author. That would typically be the photographer. Please read Commons:Licensing to get a better understanding of the principles involved.
You may also wish to review en:Wikipedia:Sock puppetry and en:Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, per LX. –Tryphon☂ 08:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Undelete request

[edit]

03:50, 23 April 2009 Rocket000 (talk | contribs) deleted "User:Bongi22" ‎ (Vandalism: content was: 'loser' (and the only contributor was '96.225.79.180')) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bongi22 (talk • contribs)

So why do you want it undeleted? If u want to use the page, just put something meaningful on it.--DieBuche (talk) 23:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, per DieBuche; the user can recreate his/her userpage. –Tryphon☂ 08:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:2Asian vulva.jpg

[edit]

Please undelete this photo. It is not porographic. It is a very good example of an Asian vulva, without being sexual. Thanks for your consideration, Palanquin

 Not done -mattbuck (Talk) 08:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:New norcia gnangarra 1.jpg, File:New norcia gnangarra 1 v2.jpg

[edit]

The Abbey church, New Norcia Western Australia. A featured image by administrator User:Gnangarra, uploaded April 1, 2010, 12.7 megapixels. His reason for deleting it is highly questionable:

"I have today deleted my only image that was an FP because of these changes, I no longer intend being associated with Wikimedia Commons. Under Australian copyright law, I invoke my rights to remove all images because of the deception behind 3.0 as such deception has invalidated all ;icensing agreements entered into."

I know nothing about the conflict this user was involved in, but we need to send a clear message that revoking freely-licensed works out of frustration, and particularly using your own administrator abilities to do it, is unacceptable. And the first step of that is restoring this high-quality contribution. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. I agree, the deletion was wrong as once an image has been released under any sort of license, you can not revoke it. Though I see no issue if an Admin deleted their own photo(s) if they realised that if there was a copyrighted DW in the photo or if FoP didn't cover what is in the photograph. Bidgee (talk) 04:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Delegates at Peace of Bucharest.jpg

[edit]

I'm unsure on this one, but surprised to see it deleted. By it's nature, it's a photo from 1918. It was deleted for lack of explicit sourcing; I wouldn't expect we would necessarily need explicit sourcing on a 90+-year old photo. Do we? - Jmabel ! talk 22:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, CORBIS claims copyright. Does anyone understand the basis of their claim? - Jmabel ! talk 22:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Offhand? I'd suspect it's just boilerplate that the CORBIS site is throwing up. As it's from 1918, I suspect some form of PD-old will work... about the ideal thing to do would be to try and track down some indication of who did the pic in the first place... Tabercil (talk) 22:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why wouldn't we need explicit sourcing on a 90+-year photo? When we're talking about life+70, 150-year old photos (taken by a 20-year-old who lived to see 100) could very well be under copyright. Assuming the average photo was taken by a 40-year-old, who lived to see the average age of 70, the average photo is under copyright for 100 years. If we assume anything, surely we must put some leeway between us and average.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I sent the folks at CORBIS an email asking if they knew who the photographer was. Their answer: "I'm sorry, there is no information on the photographer for this image. As with many historical images, photography was seen as a technical matter only and so most often no creative credit was given." Tabercil (talk) 06:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which presumably makes it 90-year-old anonymous work, which should be PD, right? - Jmabel ! talk 18:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Support undeletion. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it was published before 1923, there is no valid copyright claim in the U.S. It comes from the w:Bettman Archive, which it sounds very much as though Bettman "collected" and did not take himself (no idea if they were purchased, or simply just collected without obtaining copyrights). Bettman was German, so it wouldn't surprise me if this photo was published there, and part of his original collection he brought with him when emigrating. It was published in an EU country presumably at least. No idea if Bettman simply didn't record the photographer, or if there was no photographer noted in the first place -- and probably no way to tell anymore. I guess I  Support undeletion under {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} or {{Anonymous-EU}}. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done per discussion      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Julian assange 250px.jpg

[edit]

Hello. This photo was released under the Creative Commons licence by the apparent copyright holder here on Commons. The photo was deleted after discussion under the claim of "Copyright violation", although no details were given as to whose copyright was being "violated". The only person to claim copyright that I know of is the uploader of the photo, which the uploader released into the Creative Commons. Gregcaletta (talk) 06:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Julian assange 250px.jpg -mattbuck (Talk) 10:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion was completely regular & correct. Unless you provide with a permission, there's nothing to undelete--DieBuche (talk) 11:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We already got File:Julian Assange.jpg, why would we need to undelete a low resolutioned copy?--DieBuche (talk) 11:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reason to keep Julian Assange.jpg, either. There's a high-resolution picture, but there's no evidence the accompanying permission came from the author; it's a text file on some random website. It could be speedy deleted, as the reupload of a file deleted by DR.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Iq.org appears to be the personal site of the depicted, where the file was first published in 2006 (http://web.archive.org/web/20060712184552/http://iq.org/index.html). Thus I'd say  Keep for File:Julian Assange.jpg--DieBuche (talk) 13:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I filed this undeletion request before the new file File:Julian Assange.jpg was uploaded with permission, so I now withdraw the request for undeletion. The new file should obviously be kept. The text file with permission is an archive of Assange's own website. But this is an argument for the talk page at File:Julian Assange.jpg, so we can now close this undeletion discussion. Gregcaletta (talk) 01:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We are going to need the permission to be sent to COM:OTRS for this image stay. Bidgee (talk) 04:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it turns out permission is not needed as it is in the public domain. It was placed into the public domain (here) on the same website where the photo was first published (here). Cheers. Gregcaletta (talk) 07:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact is if http://iq.org/j-big.jpg.txt ever gets deleted, the permission (That is what the text file is) will be lost and the file could be deleted. So it is best for the permission to be sent, by the uploader, to OTRS as this would be archived, would be solid no matter what happens to (http://iq.org/) and keeps it inline with every other file here. Bidgee (talk) 08:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
given File:Julian assange.jpg I would make it an requirement to have the permission in OTRS. Its not possible that the author information switches within a few months from someone called Groasvans to someone called Martina Haris. Someone is socking here and tries to influence an Wikipedia article at any cost, even false author information, or someone simply not likes transparency ;) --Martin H. (talk) 12:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think a CU is appropriate here? Groasvans looks pretty suspicious--DieBuche (talk) 12:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, the case on Commons is clarifiable, the suggested way is COM:OTRS, Bidgee gave another important reason why that would be a very good idea. The edit pattern of that user(s) on en.wp is obvious, doesnt need any cu to show, that this are single purpose accounts. Since this activist made it in the news the article is watched by enough people to deal with POV and COI edits. --Martin H. (talk) 12:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well "permission" per se is not what is required, if Assange and Harris have released it into the public domain. [[OTRS is a permission system, but can it also be used to release things into the public domain? A simpler way might be just to archive the site; I'm not sure how to do this, but I can try to find out; I know that earlier versions of the same site are archived. I think it is fairly clear now that Martina Harris was actually the photographer, as the permission text is from a personal website of Assange and the photo is also of Assange. Gregcaletta (talk) 02:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, It looks like someone has archived the site now, so there is no danger of the public domain evidence disappearing now. Gregcaletta (talk) 02:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the archive link resolves most of the problem. Keep this deleted, it is uploaded under a different name already and the information there looks sufficient now. --Martin H. (talk) 16:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File was not undeleted, since a higher res image, File:Julian Assange.jpg was uploaded recently. --DieBuche (talk) 17:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Eastman Johnson

[edit]

Please undelete:

as no reason for speedy deletion was stated and the uploader wasn't notified. Possibly this is linked to the deletion of Creator:Eastman Johnson. Please undelete that as well.

See also: Commons:Bots/Requests/BrooklynMuseumBot#Page_Deletions. -- User:Docu at 16:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done as I can't see any reason for deletion. Clearly PD-old etc. --DieBuche (talk) 17:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The creator template has been replaced in all instances with the {{Creator:Jonathan Eastman Johnson}} by my bot--DieBuche (talk) 17:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. -- User:Docu at 20:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done already. --Martin H. (talk) 13:33, 27 June 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. It was re-deleted despite that fact that the administrator closing the previous undeletion request undeleted it. -- User:Docu at 16:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do we allow disamb. categories? I'm not sure--DieBuche (talk) 17:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We do, and there seems to be no dispute about that (see Category:Disambiguation). The dispute in this case appears to be about whether the category should have (disambiguation) in the name, since there is a Category:Vals (disambiguation), as referred to in the original deletion (see log). A bit more history might help: The previous undeletion discussion can be found at Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2010-05#Category:Vals. This was followed by further discussion as seen at User talk:Abigor/Archives/2010/May#Category undeletion. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As perfectly concluded after the manipulative discussion in Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2010-05#Category:Vals, it has been deleted and there is no reason to undelete it. It takes quite some effort to keep Category:Non-empty disambiguation categories almost empty, to maintain those disambiguation categories (that should be adapted/extended often but in practise, nobody cares about them). Some of them stay filled and untouched for months (if there are more than 50, I just do a bot move to the most likely destination), so there is little interest of provoking "lazy" categorisation that get trapped in disambiguation cats. --Foroa (talk) 21:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And indeed, on many wikipedias, redirected cats get almost always systematically deleted. --Foroa (talk) 21:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Foroa, the closing administrator decided to undelete it. If you can't accept that, you should open a new discussion rather than wheel-war over it. -- User:Docu at 21:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in the discussions is actually specific to the above category and redirects don't really have anything to to with it.
The main point we discovered is that Foroa used to delete some on the mistaken assumption their mere presence is a problem for hotcat. -- User:Docu at 11:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, disambiguations for categories are valid, for maintenance non-empty disambiguation categories are sorted to Category:Non-empty disambiguation categories by {{Disambig}}, so thats no problem, and Hotcat works great with them (it not saves but the selection changes to the possible categories). --Martin H. (talk) 13:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2010-06&oldid=113105999"