Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests

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

This is the template page where entries are added. Jump back to Commons:Undeletion requests for information and instructions.

two images relating to otrs ticket 2007031810003991

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

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

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

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

ICU seal.svg

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

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

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

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

Undelete request / needs persons with excellent comprehension of French

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


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

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

Bonjour,
J'ai consulté la page en question et vu la photo (rassure-toi, ton travail n'est pas perdu).
La photo en question semble être un portrait. Le sujet y est de trois quart face sous une lumière qui modèle son visage. Cela ne semble pas être une photo d'identité. Nous devons donc supposer que cette photo a donné lieu à des droits d'auteurs. Tant que l'auteur n'est pas identifié et qu'il n'est pas prouvé que l'image est dans le domaine public, nous devons supposer que sa présence est une violation potentielle des droits d'auteur. En conséquence, Giggy a bien fait.
Bonne continuation. Rama (talk) 14:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Donc, si je vous comprends bien, vous avez pu consulter ma page de discussion?
Et donc, pour qu'une photographie d'une personne puisse être considérée comme étant tout simplement une photo d'identité, il faut absolument que cette photographie soit prise de face, sans le moindre angle? --Duvillage (talk) 15:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oui, les admins peuvent lire des pages effacées. J'ai pu lire les prémisses votre argumentation, qui sont solides. Le point problématique est l'assimilation de la photo en question à une photo d'identité, ce qui nous amène au second point.
Oui, pour Commons, une photo d'identité devrait très clairement en être une pour être acceptée (idéalement on aurait une photo de toute la carte d'identité pour prouver la chose). En l'occurrence, la photo pourrait très bien être un détail d'une photo artistique, ou une version basse résolution d'un portrait. L'éclairage me parait très sophistiqué pour une simple photo d'identité. Rama (talk) 15:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bon, si cette la photo (que je ne trouvais pas du tout "créative") est en fait une photo artistique comment je fais alors pour savoir qui l'a prise, si elle a été publiée, si oui, quand? Est-ce la date de la publication qui est importante, ou est-ce la date du décès du photographe? Le sujet a voyagé dans les Amériques et en Europe - il avait donc un passeport avec photo! - Cette photo-ci pourrait avoir été prise aux Etats-Unis ou au Canada ou dans un autre pays européen. Dans ce cas quelles lois s'appliqueraient. Les lois du pays où la photo a été prise et/ou publiée? --Duvillage (talk) 16:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question préliminaire: vous avez l'air de croire que c'est bien une photo d'identité, est-ce que vous avez une source pour ça ? Si c'est le cas, l'image est restaurée, on ajoute une référence et la question est réglée.
Dans un cas de ce genre, il faut identifier le photographe. C'est sa date de mort qui sert de point de départ. On compte un certain nombre d'années en fonction du pays où la photo a été prise (souvent 70 ans, en particulier pour USA, Canada et Europe) ; la photo tombe dans le domaine public après ce délai.
Pour des oeuvres de plus de 170 ans, on peut « tricher » et uploader même si l'auteur est inconnu, parce qu'on peut raisonnablement considérer que tout auteur a eu le temps de mourir en 100 ans après la publication de l'oeuvre. Pour les oeuvres plus récente, c'est malheureusement impossible. Rama (talk) 16:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Il va falloir que je recommence à la case zéro. Je n'ai hélas pas conservé les détails du site où j'ai trouvé cette photo. Lorsque j'ai enregistré la photo, j'ai seulement noté le nom de la personne, ainsi que l'époque où elle a été prise. --Duvillage (talk) 19:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Monthly household income in deciles 2005.jpg

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

There was a deletion request. --O (谈 • висчвын) 20:56, 01 September 2008 (GMT)
I'd also say this file is below the threshold of originality. Some more opinions regarding that matter would be useful. →Christian.И 20:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We do not host raw text here. This is a table of raw data that contains nothing educational over and above the data presented, and is in my view out of scope under COM:PS#Excluded educational content. It should be reformatted as wikitext and uploaded to a relevant Wikipedia or other page where the content is to be used. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cafe_Lipstick.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

Image:Blond little girl.jpg

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

Image:Waals-brabant.png

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

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

Updated image info fields, hope that is OK. Thanks!

Note that after looking at the fields on this page it is clear that those fields were not "missing" originally -- that is, they were not present and empty, but did not exist on the page. I created the file originally using some kind of wizard/form that had me fill out what it said were the required fields... I'm just saying. If the requirements have changed so that new fields must be present then anyone who created an image using the wizard/form back then will have missing fields in the summary created by the wizard!

PD-RU-exempt images from Kremlin.ru

This request in relation to: , File:Dmitry Medvedev.JPG, and File:Dmitry Medvedev, 29 April 2008.jpg.

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

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

Points raised in the above referenced deletion discussion included:

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

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

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

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

We have tried to get that clarified with the Kremlin Authorities and that proved to bear no fruit. Frankly, I think it will be perfectly fine to keep the images of the decrees (if not, we can find copies of the text and put it on Wikisource). I know we have images of Russian symbols that came from the Kremlin, such as flags, hymns, arms and also medals. I think more input is needed before anything is decided. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The decrees are no problem at all, as they are an official document; what is in question here is photos which are credited to the Press Office; a government agency. It comes down to are photographs a document? I think yes. --russavia (talk) 18:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. All the examples given in the law refer to documents of a legal nature. They explicitly say "documents", not "works". Eduard Petrovich Gavrilov, an eminent scholar of copyright in Russia, wrote in an extended commentary on article 8 of the 1993 copyright law (which covered the same as article 1259, paragraph 6 in the 2006 law, using similar language; these provisions have not changed with the 2006 law) that the reason for not copyrighting such official documents was that their publication was a necessity: it was a need of the society that laws and other official documents could be published freely. (See his full commentary at this archived link.) It has a certain logic: the people must know the decrees and laws if they are to follow them, so not copyrighting them in order to facilitate their distribution makes sense. This argument, however, does not hold for photos (at least in my opinion). There is no similar pressing need to distribute photos quickly and widely, so there is no pressing reason not to copyright them. In other countries, similar provisions that make laws, decrees, and other official documents copyright-free also exist, but in those countries I'm familiar with, this doesn't cover photographs published by governmental agencies. Are there any other, possibly more recent law commentaries on the Russian copyright law that could help shed a light on the question of whether "document" subsumes "photographs"? Lupo 21:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They document in an official visual form the workings of the government. They are not fundamentally creative in intent. Ergo, they are documents. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deletion of "Jens_Fink-Jensen.jpg"

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

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

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

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

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

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

sps new logo.jpg deletion

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

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

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

Image:Adaptive Audio Screen Shot.gif

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

Adaptive Audio Screen Shot.gif

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

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

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

Thanks

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

File:Kbh HC Andersen 3.jpg

Das Bild ist von Giggy ohne Vorankündigung gelöscht worden. Dort habe ich auf der Diskussionsseite einige Erläuterungen gebracht, die Giggy überhaupt nicht zur Kenntnis genommen hat.

Die Büste stammt aller Wahrscheinlichkeit nach aus dem 19. Jh. Ich habe aber beim Stadtarchiv Kopenhagen nachgefragt, um sicher zu gehen. Nach dem Tagebuch Andersens hat er fünf Bildhauern zur Anfertigung einer Büste Modell gestanden.

  • 1838 Jens Adolf Jerichau (1816-1883)
  • 1846 Andreas Kolberg (1817-1869)
  • 1847 Joseph Durham (1821-1877)
  • 1864 Fr. Chr. Stramboe (1833-1908)
  • 1864 H. V. Bissen (1798-1868)

Es ist anzunehmen, dass im Rathaus ein eine zu seinen Lebzeiten entstandene und nicht eine Büste, die ein späterer Bildhauer gefertigt hat, aufgestellt ist. Wenn man sich die Büste von H. V. Bissen in Odense auf http://museum.odense.dk/H_C_Andersen.aspx?lang=en ansieht, dann weist die Ähnlichkeit, wenn nicht auf den Bildhauer selbst, dann doch auf seine Zeit hin. Fingalo (talk) 16:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Auf meine Anfrage im Stadtarchiv Kopenhagen erhielt ich folgendes mail: "På grund af personalemæssige årsager vil du først få svar på din forespørgsel efter den 1.10.2008" = "Aus Personalgründen werden Sie erst nach dem 1.10. eine Antwort auf Ihre Frage erhalten."

Ich bin vom 1.10. bis 8.10. verreist. Fingalo (talk) 11:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nun ja, das Bild kann ja wohl wiederhergestellt werden, wenn wir den Bildhauer identifiziert haben. Es gibt übrigens im Königlichen Theater noch eine Kopie der Büste von H.V. Bissen, geschaffen von dessen Sohn Vilhelm Bissen (1836-1913) im Jahr 1902, und der Stadt übergeben 1930.[2] Lupo 11:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gut, ich werde mich zu gegebener Zeit an Dich wenden. Fingalo (talk) 13:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heute bekam ich folgende Antwort:
Som svar på Deres forespørgsel kan jeg oplyse at der på bagsiden af busten står A. Svejstrup. M 1935. Det er det nærmeste jeg kan komme det, da vi ikke har oversigter over de værker der står på rådhuset og deres ophavsmænd. = Als Antwort auf Ihre Anfrage kann ich mitteilen, dass auf der Rückseite der Büste steht A Svejstrup. 1935. Das ist das dichteste, an das ich da herankommen kann, da wir keine Übersicht über die Werke haben, die im Rathaus unter deren Verwaltung stehen." Über diesen A. Svejstrup habe ich nichts finden können. Fingalo (talk) 18:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sie schreiben, auf der Büste stehe "A Svejstrup M 1935". Was das "A" soll, ist mir unklar, aber "Svejstrup M" steht für Charles Svejstrup Madsen. (Laut der 1947er-Ausgabe von Weilbachs Kunstnerleksikon hiess er sogar "Vilhelm Thorvald Charles"). Laut Weilbachs (1947 und 1994) hat dieser die Büste von H.C. Andersen im Rathaus zu Kopenhagen geschaffen.[3] Damit war die Löschung dieses Bildes OK, und die restlichen Bilder dieser Büste müssen leider ebenfalls noch weg. Lupo 20:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ach, Image:Kbh HC Andersen 4.jpg ist ja schon weg. Lupo 20:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Butyrometer.jpg

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

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

Image: iROCK109Logo.jpg

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

Thank you,

DCLive

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

Flags of Pittsburgh and Philadelphia

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

I second that wish and ask it is done fast. Afterwards please run the delinker bot again and restore the images in all projects. --h-stt !? 13:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I left a note with the admin who deleted them. --Dtbohrer (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yhosoda.pfd

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

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

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

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

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

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

File:O Clone advertisement.jpg

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

The image has been deleted twice for being a copyright violation. To have it restored you woould need to show that the image has been freely licenced by the copyright holder for use for any purpose (licences that allow educational use only or use on Wikipedia only are not enough). So far as I can see, it appears just to have been taken from some web page and there is no valid licence from the copyright holder at all. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no copyright requirement by any holder at all, that is the question; whereas the image remains scattered and ignored on the internet, with its creator hidden in anonymity, considering its noble informative importance, which, unfortunately, will be missed with its deletion. As a result, the image must be considered free for use; and no requirement of copyright will ever be taken.--Thedreamer (talk) 03:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the way we work here. The fact that you do not know who the copyright owner is does not make the image free. Please see COM:PRP. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am really sorry for that, especially for all this bureaucracy, which only hinders the free access to any piece of information. The Wikipedia project cannot be considered in its slogan as a free deed any longer. In this case, if you are able to delete the files, please, be also able to delete my account. I better quit, since I see that my contribution does not have any relevance at all. --Thedreamer (talk) 23:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete

Hello, my friend.

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

Thanks.


Vizeds.jpg

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

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

Image:Map-Hispanophone World.png

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

Gallerygirl

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

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

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

 Oppose - i am still thinking the image was out of scope. Sterkebaktalk 19:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Please see en:Fulcrum Gallery. There is an amazing amount of press coverage for this business. The topic is encyclopedic and hence within scope. -Nard the Bard 23:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Scope is defined at Commons:Project scope. Generally speaking, pictures not useful for Wikimedia or Wikipedia are considered outside the scope, especially if they are personal images with no usefulness. Usually in borderline cases the deletion should be debated, and in many cases whether or not the image should appear in a Wikipedia article isn't even a matter for Commons to decide, but for the local Wikipedia to decide. If this case is borderline it should be undeleted and opened for debate, rather than deleted outright. -Nard the Bard 16:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image looks to me to be out of scope & likely to be promotional. Not necessary & so do not undelete. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 17:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Image:Graf Zeppelin 1908.jpg

I believe this postcard meets the definition of an anonymous or pseudonymous work as described in {{Anonymous-EU}}: If the author identified her/himself publicly, do not use this template. If the work is anonymous or pseudonymous (e.g., published only under a corporate or organization's name), use this template for images published more than 70 years ago.

  • Date: 1908 from postmark on rear side
  • Uploader: User:Darkone
  • Deletion log history
  • Publisher: Louis Glaser Verlag, Leipzig, Germany; active from 1880s to late 1920s
  • "Evidence of anonymous status": User talk:Darkone#Image Tagging Image:Graf Zeppelin 1908.jpg wrote:

    There is no sign of an idividual author, only a a publisher on the left side (visible in the picture) "Louis Glaser Verlag". On the back is the stamp with the postmark (from 1908) and a advertisement from a firm which sells "pretroleum-lamps".

However, Commons policy is not yet clarified in respect to how much evidence is required for anonymous (rather than merely unknown). I.e., do we take the uploader's word for what is on the back of postcards, or will Commons insist on academic quality research? Discussion on policy is ongoing here:

Meanwhile, could this image be restored, so that a proper look at the image and the (current) policy could be considered? If policy (the new one if necessary) decides it is not anonymous, then please could it be moved to the English Wikipedia, where I believe the image is US public domain. -Wikibob (talk) 00:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment (More information) Internet Archive cache of the image and Google cache of image description page has
    Postkarte von 1908 aus Familienbesitz
    Aufschrift: Graf Zeppelin's Luftschiff vor der Schutzhalle auf dem Bodensee. LZ-4     and what could be a PD-Old tag (which would require an author's details, so Anonymous-EU should have been used instead). -Wikibob (talk) 00:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC) added missing colon to section link-Wikibob (talk) 01:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose undeletion. Did anyone ask the Zeppelin museum about this image? They might know more. Has anyone checked books on Graf Zeppelin? It might be reproduced with attribution there... What kind of research has been done at all? Lupo 09:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • But that's another sticking point. Attribution today doesn't restore the copyright. Copyright law is clear that the author must have revealed himself during the original copyright period in order to claim copyright. And if the original copyright period was say 50 years, this could have been public domain as soon as 1959. It wouldn't matter if the author revealed himself on January 2, 1959, it would still be a public domain work. The work as such is not attributed. And if you did find an attribution I would challenge you to prove the author's name became known during the original protection period. -Nard the Bard 18:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't mean modern books. Libraries typically also have old books. And there are old books on Graf Zeppelin:[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]. Fact is, no research has been done. BTW, a diligent research would also include checking newspaper archives from back then. The second-but-last of the aforementioned books is entitled "Ein Lebensbild nach Zeitungsberichten" ("His life according to newspaper reports"). Lupo 18:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion request of the image Human testicle.JPG

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

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

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

Personally I think we have enough mediocre flash self-photographs of people's junk. The world is full of other people / places / objects... Megapixie (talk) 15:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whe have enough penis on commons. This is shaved to Image:Erect penis shaved pubic hair.JPG Sterkebaktalk 16:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AdelaideAirportSkyline.jpg

Hi,

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

It has been twice deleted for "Missing essential information: source, license and/or permission" even though both are clearly present on the original Wikipeida entry [17]. It has also been deleted for "In category Unknown - No timestamp given; not edited for 18 days." I asked what this means, but no one has replied.

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

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

✓ Done The problem is that this stupid bot doesn't know what to do with the English Wikipedia tag Template:PD-author. Here at the commons, a {{PD-author}} tag without author is a reason for speedy deletion. The bot should just have used {{PD-user-en}} instead of the ridiculous series of three tags all saying essentially the same thing. I've undeleted Image:AdelaideAirportSkyline.jpg and tagged it correctly. If we now could have some OTRS confirmation that en:User:AtD is indeed Adam Trevorrow, that'd be great. Lupo 10:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your prompt help. Much appreciated. --123.243.209.136 11:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Belfast murals

Two images of murals in Belfast were deleted with the comment/reason, "derivative work, no freedom of panorama in Ireland for murals". In fact, there are two jurisdictions in Ireland and it looks like these were deleted with regard to law in the Republic of Ireland ("not covered by §93 of the Irish Copyright and Related Rights Act, 2000" -- Vadakkan - this act appears to be Republic of Ireland legislation). Belfast however, is not in the Republic of Ireland. Belfast is covered by British law and Northern Irish law.

I'm not familiar with enough with the law as regards to copyright, though I think this deletion needs reassessed in light of the error made in the first instance.

So far as I can see, according to the UK Intellectual Property Office, exceptions to copyright include "Non-commercial research and private study", "Criticism or review, reporting current events", "Teaching in educational establishments", and "Sufficient acknowledgment". Also included are "Publicly situated works". --Setanta747 (talk) 19:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only of these relevant for us might be "publicly situated works" (the others all are "fair use"-like copyright exceptions that are not accepted here), but if you look at the UK Copyright Act itself, this exception for works in public places does not extend to paintings or murals. Lupo 20:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where can I view the UK Copyright Act and what Act, if any, covers (photographs of) paintings and murals etc (and where can I view that Act)?
I think there must be a case for these well-known murals to be covered (that is, allowed, given the context of Wikimedia) under some publication law or some other law. Considering the murals are ongoing 'events', very much a part of the culture and recent (and current) history of Northern Ireland. Many are being replaced due to the current, less violent, political climate; many others are being preserved and maintained. Many are also unique in that they portray individual events or 'emotes'.
I would suggest that we let this request sit for a while so that some experts can investigate the situation (though you may be one such expert yourself, Lupo) and discuss possibilities. --Setanta747 (talk) 00:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
COM:FOP#United Kingdom will give you all the information you need to verify what Lupo has said. There is also a link there to the actual statute. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say I needed to verify what Lupo has stated. See my comment above for how I think we should proceed. Thanks for pointing out the link to the FOP section on here - it might positively solve the issue. See Section 57 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. --Setanta747 (talk) 20:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's "anonymous works". You're grasping at straws here. Neither mural looks as if the unknown author died long ago enough. Lupo 20:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SNS Heinlein.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your understanding.

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

Image:SheridanMonumentDC.jpg

Image:SheridanMonumentDC.jpg was deleted some time ago, under the misunderstanding that 70 p.m.a applies in the U.S. (for older works) rather than the date of publication. It depicts a statue by en:Gutzon Borglum erected in 1908, so the statue qualifies as PD-US, and the photo was licensed fine as well (I think it was from Flickr, if memory serves). The statue would be deemed "published" per case law of the time (and also under the current definition of "published" even though that only became effective in 1978). I posted further discussion towards the bottom of Commons_talk:Licensing/Archive_12#Does_PD-US_supersede_copyright_expiration.3F, but forgot to make the undeletion request at the time. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely convinced. I would think we'd have to go with the understanding of "published" in current US law and I don't feel you've sufficiently demonstrated that the statue was published, in that sense, before 1923. "A work of art that exists in only one copy, such as a ... statue, is not regarded as published when the single existing copy is sold ... When the work is reproduced in multiple copies ... the work is published when the reproductions are publicly distributed or offered to a group for further distribution or public display. "[18] Haukurth (talk) 23:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting on the "one copy" thing, as that contradicts a Nimmer paper I saw, but that does seem correct (and is from a Copyright Office circular). (Although, there is a second copy of the statue in Chicago.) However, I think the 1976 law was not retroactive. We don't use those newer copyright terms on older works for the same reasons; if something was public domain via the old rules it remained public domain after passage of that law. The en:Chicago Picasso was ruled PD based on the old rules (which was not even a permanent installation) in s:Letter Edged in Black Press, Inc. v. Public Building Commission of Chicago; I don't think we need to reconsider that because of the 1976 law. I don't see why this would be any different; it would have been PD by 1976 by the old rules even if registered and renewed.
This PDF document says that the definition was not retroactive (Cases arising today involving works that allegedly were published prior to 1978 therefore must rely upon more ambiguous definitions derived from the pre-1978 case law.). The Picasso statue ruling was based on s:American Tobacco Co. v. Werckmeister, where the Supreme Court ruled that a public exhibition of a work of art does not constitute publication "where there are bylaws against copies, or where it is tacitly understood that no copying shall take place, and the public are admitted to view the painting on the implied understanding that no improper advantage will be taken of the privilege." The paper above then says that The negative implication appears to be that exhibition without such express or implicit restrictions on copying could, in an appropriate case, constitute publication; not surprisingly, some courts have interpreted American Tobacco in precisely this way. (one of which being the Picasso case). Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good points. In Europe copyright law tends to retroactively kick you in the shins every time it gets a chance and I forgot that the US tends to be a bit different. Your conclusions imply that any statue publicly erected in the US before 1923 would be in the public domain. If no-one can blow a convincing hole in that argument we will indeed want to restore that photograph. Haukurth (talk) 02:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is the way I read it. Looking further into s:American Tobacco Co. v. Werckmeister/Opinion of the Court (a 1907 case), it plainly states We do not mean to say that the public exhibition of a painting or statue, where all might see and freely copy it, might not amount to publication within the statute, regardless of the artist's purpose or notice of reservation of rights which he takes no measure to protect. But such is not the present case, where the greatest care was taken to prevent copying. That seems to plainly state that statues freely displayed in public did constitute publication, and so if put up before 1923 they would now be PD (plus, anything put up before 1978 without a copyright notice on it would also be PD). Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good news, thanks. But this means a lot of work for the restorers (f. e. the George Washington statue of 1966 in Donald De Lue. Regards Mutter Erde (talk) 08:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You would have to document that there was no copyright notice on those, I think, not just hope that one isn't there (or happens to not be visible in the photo). The 1923 line should be safe regardless though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a pity that this statue is so far away from Berlin. So there is currently only the front side to see: en:Image:GeorgeWashington Statue on Marniers Church Jefferson Ave., Detroit, Michigan.jpg :-). Regards Mutter Erde (talk) 16:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to this, that statue was copyrighted in 1959. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure a copyright registered 5 decades after publicly unveiling a statue would stand up in court. Of course I'm also not sure Wikimedia wants to try to fight it. -Nard the Bard 00:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the change of topic partway through the discussion :-) I was referring to the image pointed out by Mutter Erde, which depicts a statue copyrighted in 1959 and erected in 1966. If copyright was renewed in 1986 or 1987, then it most certainly would still be under copyright. As for the (completely different) image for this undeletion request, see below... Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) After discussing this on Commons talk:Freedom of panorama#Sculptures_and_public_art_in_the_United_States, we added this info to COM:FOP#United States. Basically, any statue permanently displayed in public before 1978 would be considered "published", and therefore, regular US copyright rules apply for those. If a statue was put up in public before 1923 (like this one), then it is PD-US. Per that, this image is fine. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bayeux-crypte1.JPG unfair vote

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

Page: Bayeux-crypte1.JPG unfair vote

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

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

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

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

Image:Preteen_penis_3.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

user warrington

my user page has been delated. Why?

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

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

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

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

I wrote the name of the Persian Gulf in Arabic as it is accepted in the Arabic Wikipedia الخليج العربي AKA the Arabian Gulf. This also is the official name that the Arab countries call it.
Does this mean if a Frenchman translating an English map would be falsely translating it by calling "The English Channel" "La Manche", therefor this should cause the image to be deleted immediately??!
Second what happened about neutrality here, I do not think this admin was neutral, maybe because of his nationality? I think it would have been better if he referred the issue to another admin. He should also have given me the chance to defend what I have translated in discussion, maybe I might abide by what he thinks I ought to do, why the assumptions?
Please also note that many other maps in Commons relating to the area in Arabic calling the Gulf exactly the same way I have called it.
I am a serious trusted Wikipedian, and I have over 25,000 edits from August 2007 till to day in the Arabic Wikipedia and I have uploaded at least 500 images here. I believe there is something wrong here, and I think I ought to be treated with the same serious way I participate in Wikipedia. So please I want this image reinstated.--Producer (talk) 23:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

FISUST1.jpg

This file was deleted by the administrator, supposedly for copyright infringement.

This is the FISUST Federation Seal accompanied by 100% copyright's necessary for posting.

Any deletion request and/or noisy administrators ... 'IGNORE IT'


Professor King FISUST Federation

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

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

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

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

File:Virginia Civil Rights Memorial.jpg

This image was deleted under the argument that it is a statue (a series of statues actually) and there is no freedom of panorama in the United States. Indeed there is not. The reason I ask for undeletion, is that this was not a copyrighted statue to begin with. This public memorial is in the same category as the African American Civil War Memorial and the National FDR memorial, all of which are statues made by living artists which are not copyrightable. I was disappointed there was no discussion on this, and that both the nominator and the administrator who deleted the image failed to allow for the simple explanation.--Patrickneil (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions

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

It seems that User:Kelly, with which I had a content dispute in an unrelated subject, has been tagging images for deletion with no basis. jossi (talk) 18:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was an email address on these images (legal@tprf.org) to which you can write to confirm the GNU licensing of these images. jossi (talk) 18:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=14993764"