Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2007-07

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

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

Image:Ocha05e.jpg[edit]

Restore Image:Ocha05e.jpg Please restore Image:Ocha05e.jpg I am the Illustrator and the photographer of this cartoon and I want this picture to be GFDL & CC. Used to that page http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%93%AC%E5%8F%A4%E7%8C%AB .

http://www.geocities.co.jp/AnimeComic/2888/

--擬古猫(GIKONEKO) 19:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an e-mail from an e-mail address that is associated with your website to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org saying you release the image under those licenses. Please also include a link to where the image is located on commons. Thanks, Yonatan talk 01:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I send to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 04:21:28 +0900. But that image has "Costume played" charactor ,Origin charactor is "Ice-chan" was a Copyrights Yoshitomo Watanabe /Touhoku Denryoku,That, Mr.EPO You think that should call when there is a possibility of causing misunderstanding, clearly.There was no intention which makes misunderstanding promote intentionally in this.

Explanation and insufficient. Mr.Yonatan , you to explain is grateful politely.Thank you.--擬古猫(GIKONEKO) 08:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Canada money[edit]

The original deletion of various Canadian bank note images was done based on a policy which requires written permission for reproduction of Canadian bank notes. As I understand the Bank's policy, "reproduction" means reprinting. It's not illegal to have a picture of a Canadian dollar bill; it is illegal to print out that picture in the approximate size of the note. I believe that the relevant policy for images (and text) can be found at the bottom of the Bank's pages: "Permission is granted to reproduce or cite portions herein, if attribution is given to the Bank of Canada." Audacity 01:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted at bottom of page. Audacity 04:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Vlag Lede.gif[edit]

No reason to delete. {{PD-Vlaams-gemeentewapen}} applies. Flemish municipality flags and their reproductions are always PD. Sonuwe 21:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Support - will people please stop deleting plain PD images --LimoWreck 21:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted. -- Bryan (talk to me) 10:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Maps by country[edit]

This category is the destination for the contents of Category:Maps of countries. I created this category, and we'll move the contents soon, so please protect the history and undelete the category page. --Juiced lemon 19:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done by another admin. Siebrand 09:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Resica Falls 1980 camp patch.png[edit]

I am requesting the image be restored. A while ago, when I can't remember when, I posted Image:Resica Falls 1980 camp patch.png. I went and secured permission from the permission to release the image from the person who scanned the image, and the local Boy Scout Council that owns the camp. I then forwarded both emails to the OTRS people. The image was tagged with the permission OTRS ticket 2006081110007751. Imagine my surprise when, without any notice, User:MECU deleted the image (the log is here).

This all happened in the last six hours. On a side note, User:BigDT and User:Mecu had correspondence about it, but at no time did I ever get any notice from them about a potential problem. In fact, the whole process took less than 1/2 a day. If there is a problem, I would have liked to be given notice prior to its being deleted and transfered to wikipedia. Thank you. --Evrik 19:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The person who scanned the image does not own its copyright - the Scout Council does. In order for it to be a free image, the Scout Council would need to agree to release it either into the public domain, under the GFDL, or under another GFDL-compatible license. --BigDT 20:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ummm ... if you read what i wrote, you'll see I secured the permission from both the scanner and the council. What happened to the emails after I sent them to OTRS is beyond my control. --Evrik 20:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmmm... according to MECU, who has access to OTRS, the permission in OTRS is insufficient. Apparently based on misunderstanding. I'll undelete the image. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • There was one 1 e-mail in OTRS that I saw. Do you have another OTRS ticket number? The e-mail in OTRS was for the scanner or owner of the website the image was taken from. Which is irrelevant. We need the other e-mail you claim to have. If you still have it could you please send it in under the same ticket number please? MECU≈talk 20:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll look for it. --Evrik 20:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Image has been undeleted and an OTRS reference has been added to the description. Siebrand 09:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Maps of countries[edit]

Thank you for the undeletion of Category:Maps by country and for the quick move of the contents Category:Maps of countries. However, I requested this move because some users wished to categorize other types of items in Category:Maps of countries. So, please, undelete Category:Maps of countries.

More generally, can you stop the systematic deletion of the category pages which have been moved? --Juiced lemon 20:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

restored. I'll look into recatbot not deleting a category page if the cat to which it is moved is not present. Siebrand 09:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Nuvola apps kcmpartitions.png[edit]

This icon belonging to the Category:Nuvola icons seems to have disappeared. I found it in the upload log, but couldn't find when and why it was deleted. This icon is used in polling templates here in Commons and across various wikiprojects. Can you please check and, if possible, restore it? Thanks, Ary29 08:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no deletion log entry, so the file cannot be recovered. It is very possible that the icons was removed because it was a duplicate. Siebrand 09:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted without checking usage?? That's not a very good practice, and for sure it is a great disservice to all sister/brother projects. Ary29 09:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I said: there is no deletion log. Your assumption is premature and possibly cannot ever be verified. Siebrand 09:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there was an image, and now there is nothing: something has happened.. I am sysop on it.wikipedia and one time it happened that I deleted an article when a wikidown was starting and the deletion didn't appear in the log. Could it be the same problem? Sorry for my English.. --Jaqen 10:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, see bug #10128 --.anaconda 10:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a particularly nasty bug, then. Also see similar reports at COM:VP. Siebrand 13:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done The file is available again. Siebrand 06:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Blason-Mons.jpg[edit]

Municipal coat of arms. Images itself are PD (regardless of age) For the interested reader: This one even dates from 1818 (granted) - 1842 (confirmed), and they are non original. It's only not allowed to misuse them... but that's just the end-user's responsability, as explained by {{PD-Coa}} ;-) --LimoWreck 18:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Support PD-Image Sonuwe 18:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment A core requirement in {{PD-Coa}} is "Please provide verifiable copyright information, or choose a more specific copyright tag." It also states the warning "This template is disputed; it may be deleted at some point." The deleted image has been tagged 7 days or more before deletion, contained {{GFDL}} as license and no source or other information was provided. It should not be restored. Siebrand 09:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There you go, the source is simply above: created somewhere in 1818. You may even add PD-old if you like. Simple PD, trivial reason to restore the thing. --LimoWreck 19:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted. 1818 seems old enough for me to be PD-old. -- Bryan (talk to me) 10:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Crystal_Clear_app_package_favourite.png[edit]

One of Everaldo set: Crystal_Clear Just disappeared, not in deletion log.

See Bug #10128 and COM:VP#Missing images, they're on their way to being restored. -- Editor at Large • talk 00:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Issue resolved. Image is there agian. Siebrand 09:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Vadim_delaunay.jpg[edit]

I try to re-upload the file from because we need it at various wiki prohects. Now it is posted at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vadim_delaunay.jpg under "free" license. I upload it here with "attribution" license. I hope, it is good with tespect to copyright. If you think, that here, the license should be also "free", correct it. Domitori 04:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that image is fair use, and not allowed on Commons. If your local wiki project allows fair use, you can upload it locally. -- Bryan (talk to me) 10:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Lage des Regierungsbezirkes Münster in Deutschland.png[edit]

The log says (superseded) but there is no comparable replacement, and the image is being used in w:ksh:Münster, Rejierungsbezirk - if Commons is not going to keep the image, we want to have it locally. --Purodha Blissenbach 16:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted. Sorry for the inconvenience we have caused you. I have contacted the deleting admin. -- Bryan (talk to me) 10:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:logo_PES.jpg[edit]

The image "logo_PES.jpg" has been deleted without any reason this afternoon. I can send you a message from our PES website to show you that I m in charge of the Official PES website and that the image uploaded this afternoon had reached every conditions to appear on that page...

Hello. You wrote in the description permission=restricte. Please note that by posting an image to Commons, you allow anybody to use the image for any purpose, including commercial use and derivative work. If you want to do this:
  • First select a license for the logo, such as the {{GFDL}} or {{Cc-by-2.0}}. Then:
    • Replace the copyright statement on the website by Some rights reserved: licensed under the <LICENSE>
  • or:
    • Write an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org where you state the image, and the license you agree to license the image under. Please use the template on Commons:Email templates for that.

Hope that helps, -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Agrobacterium[edit]

In the French wiki, microbiology portal... The image DSCN1805.JPG was deleted but I do not understand why. Deletion log is mute with respect to this point. Note that I drew this image for my students and that there is no copyvio imho. Could you restore it please? Best.

The image Image:DSCN1805.JPG was deleted because it never had a license tag on it thsays you allow others to use the image freely. Since you created it, you can add a license tag to it. If you release all rights, you can use {{PD-self}}. Other popular choices are {{FAL}} or {{cc-by-sa-2.5}}. / Fred J 18:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And please do so before 19 June, or the image will be deleted again! -- Bryan (talk to me) 09:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as per above discussion. Siebrand 15:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Penis_testicles.jpg[edit]

Please undelete this image deleted by user Yug. Images that are used in Wikimedia projects should not be deleted without good reasons.Mathy38 10:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted. Sorry for the inconvenience we have caused you. -- Bryan (talk to me) 12:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as per above discussion. Siebrand 15:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Cosplay images[edit]

I believe cosplay images are not a violation of the companies copyright. FOP applies if nothing else. -- Cat chi? 15:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why would Pokemon cosplay not be Derivative works? And FOP is for works situated permanently outdoors, I do not see these cosplay doing that? / Fred J 17:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I talked to several people about this, I withdraw the request. -- Cat chi? 12:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as withdrawn. Siebrand 15:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Poké Ball.svg[edit]

I do not see a compelling reason to delete this. or any of the entries here: Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Nuvo!a_ball.svg. Images can be trademarked, but copyrighting them - I think not. -- Cat chi? 15:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose. The deletion debate reached a clear consensus, and there is no argument to support the claim that the image isn't subject to copyright protection. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Image was properly deleted after a deletion request and there seems to be no consensus to undelete. -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Mew pikachu togepi graffiti.jpg[edit]

FOP applies. -- Cat chi? 15:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, COM:FOP only applies if the work was put there by the copyright owner, not if it was sprayed in graffiti by some unauthorized other. / Fred J 17:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FOP means the graffiti is merely there incidentally in the picture on a stationary location. The ownership of copyright is irrelevant when FOP is concerned. At the very least this should be discussed on COM:DEL and shouldn't be speedied. Not a "clear-cut case". It isn't a screencap or anything. -- Cat chi? 12:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Should be undeleted and go through a deletion request, imho. -- Bryan (talk to me) 12:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose. This is a clear-cut-case. The Pikachu character, which is copyrighted by Nintendo is the subject of the image. Its inclusion is primary; not incidental. Nintendo clearly have not approved reproduction of the character under a CC-by-sa license. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, if you guys want to undelete it and initiate a regular deletion process, I won't mind, but I think it would result in a clear delete, as LX said. / Fred J 19:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose This is a clear-cut-case. FOP only applies to the work of the graffiti artist. The original work, however, is still "unfree" and protected. Samulili 19:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus for undeletion. -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Cuisine of Brazil & Category:Cuisine of Greece[edit]

The category has been deleted on 17 April 2007 without explicit reason. Its name is the correct one, according to Commons:By location category scheme, so I request its undeletion for consistency with other categories (see also Category:Cuisine by country). --Juiced lemon 10:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:By location category scheme is a proposal, not a policy. Nevertheless, as all other Cuisines seem to be with "of", I have undeleted this category. I suggest you ask the deleting admin why the category was deleted. -- Bryan (talk to me) 12:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Birds of New Zealand[edit]

This page is an index of birds of New Zealand with links to gallery pages and categories which makes it very easy to see which of these birds has already had photographs uploaded to commons. I was using it as part of Commons:WikiProject Birds. It appears to have been deleted without any discussion before hand as it was on my watchlist but I saw no notification of its impending deletion. --Tony Wills 11:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done, looks valid as a page but I think it should be tidied some and redlinks avoided. However if folk disagree.... Cheers --Herby talk thyme 11:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the speedy undelete. :-) --Tony Wills 13:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The redlinks are the whole point - high-lighting where images are still needed. If this page is not seen as valuable as a normal gallery page, it could perhaps be moved to commons:, perhaps as a subpage of WikiProject Birds.
  • I now see this page's deletion was part of a mass deletion known as User:Szczepan1990. Who seems to have implemented some policy of deleting pages who have been contributed to by only one person. He appears to have shredded the efforts of a few dedicated people who have created gallery and category pages in a number of projects. My particular interest being those under Wikiproject Tree Of Life (but others, eg some pages relating to towns and cities, have also got the chop). The TOL projects will ultimately (hopefully) have images of all animals and plants and categories and galleries probably down to the species level for each and every one. I am now in the process of constructing a request for mass (dozens) of pages to be undeleted that relate to the TOL projects. --Tony Wills 13:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Info The other 283 TOL pages have now been restored --Tony Wills 11:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Somali land 2007 05 18.png[edit]

This map was created by User:Ingoman, and he certainly wanted to license it as PD-self, as he did with his other works but sometimes forgot it[1]. The reason why he didn't react to the deletion request and add the required tag himself was probably that he didn't notice it – his last contribution on Commons was on 19 May 2007. Béka 11:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored three deleted images by Ingoman, and added the PD-tag to them. / Fred J 12:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

TOL-related navigation pages[edit]

A number of biology/taxonomy pages have been deleted, and many since undeleted. I understand the impulse, since at least some of them are non-graphical (for example, a page for a genus having nothing but a list of links to species in the genus), but these sorts of pages help the "TOL crowd" organize that (rather large) part of commons. See Commons_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life#Mass_deletion_of_.27Gallery.27.2FInfo_Pages for a discussion of the problem.

Rather than bring every one of these pages up for individual undeletion, I'd instead like to simply undelete on sight. Ideally, all these pages would be graphically-presented lists, but doing so for every genus, species, and higher taxonomical order will take a bit of time... we'll get there eventually :). For now, it's better to have some not-pretty-or-particulary-informative-but-useful-for-organization pages than nothing at all. --SB_Johnny|talk|books 10:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery pages not containing galleries should never be deleted by some automated script, but only after a human has checked whether or not the page is useful to Commons. And the TOL pages certainly are. I support undeletion on sight. -- Bryan (talk to me) 13:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As Bryan & I undeleted the requested one above immediately I saw it (& will undelete any similar ones I come across or am asked to) --Herby talk thyme 13:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware of a script being used, though if that's the case, then that's definitely a problem IMO. However, the ones I've come across weren't always from the same admin's logs (IIRC), so I had suspected there might be a misunderstood policy floating about somewhere. I'll post a note on the TOL talk page asking folks to check for redlinks on their watchlists and just post there, rather than clogging up RFU :). --SB_Johnny|talk|books 21:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Coca-Cola logo.svg[edit]

I decided to start moving non-copyrighted logos and trademarks to Commons, but after about 13 seconds since I uploaded the first file it was deleted and I was banned. Here are my arguments why the well-known Coca-Cola logotype is public domain:

  • it is simply the words "Coca-Cola" written in Spencerian Script with no creative input that I would accept copyrightable
  • the Spencerian Script was created in 1840 by Platt Rogers Spencer who died in 1864, so it is definitely public domain
  • the Coca-Cola logo was designed in 1885, so it still would very certainly be public domain no matter what

All this was properly marked and explained on the image description, but the admin still, apparently hurriedly, deleted it as "fair use". The file is also protected against recreation --Hautala 20:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, {{PD-text-logo}}, and if it cannot be considered a simple font, {{PD-US}} applies anyway. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Canada money[edit]

Moved from above to get attention - Audacity 04:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The original deletion of various Canadian bank note images was done based on a policy which requires written permission for reproduction of Canadian bank notes. As I understand the Bank's policy, "reproduction" means reprinting. It's not illegal to have a picture of a Canadian dollar bill; it is illegal to print out that picture in the approximate size of the note. I believe that the relevant policy for images (and text) can be found at the bottom of the Bank's pages: "Permission is granted to reproduce or cite portions herein, if attribution is given to the Bank of Canada." Audacity 01:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Portions", meaning the text and possibly some images. Please note the following points:
  • "The Bank of Canada is the registered copyright owner of all design elements of Canadian bank notes, including the portraits, vignettes, and numerals."
  • "Although the Bank is the copyright owner of the images used on Canadian bank notes, it recognizes that currency is an important symbol of value in Canada. Accordingly, people may wish to reproduce images for appropriate reasons. The Bank will ordinarily consent to such reproductions if
  1. there is no risk that the reproduced image could be mistaken for a genuine note or misused by counterfeiters
  2. the proposed use does not tarnish the dignity and importance of currency to Canadians."
These restrictions are on any visual representation of the currency, not just on physical reproductions of the notes. While this means the images we had - most of which had "SPECIMEN" written on them - are okay, on this page it states that images on the Bank's website (where many of the deleted images came from) are subject to these restrictions:
  • Images in this gallery can be used or reproduced for personal or public non-commercial use, free of charge, as long as the following conditions are met:
  1. the photographs are reproduced accurately and without alterations
  2. the Bank of Canada is identified as the source
  3. it is not implied that your particular use of the photographs is done in affiliation with, or with the endorsement of, the Bank of Canada.
This is essentially a cc-by-nc-nd license with a disclaimer. Non-commercial and no-derivatives licenses are not permitted here, nor are images with restrictions such as the last point. -- Editor at Large • talk 07:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Thanks. Audacity 18:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:71.233.232.243[edit]

This is my user page that was deleted for no reason. 71.233.232.243 22:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's because you vandalize pages, Yung6, Da Man2, etc. So stop it. Ltljltlj 00:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IPs generally do not have userpages, unless the user is an established long-term contributor of useful edits and chooses to edit from an IP address instead of signing up. IP userpages are generally used by administrators to mark sockpuppets or blocked users, not as a showcase of images contributed under blocked socks because you cannot edit from the other accounts. -- Editor at Large • talk 11:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Siebrand 12:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Hadrosauridae[edit]

Please restore this category which has been deleted for an obsolete reason. --Juiced lemon 20:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done

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

Category:Statues in France[edit]

This category has been deleted for the reason Empty category. This reason is obviously invalid, since "to be empty" is not a feature of a category page. The correct form, according to Commons:By location category scheme, is Statues in LOCATION, because of is used to point what the statue portray. Example: Category:Statues of Christian saints. Therefore, I request the undeletion of this category. --Juiced lemon 13:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done -- Bryan (talk to me) 13:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jan Sobczynski[edit]

Please restore images of Jan Sobczynski's painting which were on this page (Jan Sobczynski – commons) Polish 'PL-Wiki' administrator szczepan1900 frivolously deleted pages despite the fact that copyright permission was given to the author of the page Mr. Jacek Rossakiewic (JAR). Case against szczepan1990 is pending for abusing administrative rights.

permission for publication is on wiki–permissions record.

Best Regards, Dr. Radek Sobczynski –son of deceased painter Jan Sobczynski

Handling in OTRS #2007063010001329. MECU≈talk 17:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:500mark-ddr.jpg[edit]

Image shows the obverse of the East German 1980s 500 DDM bill. It was delete because of (In category Images with unknown source as of 6 August 2006; not edited for 1 days). As the other east german bills, it was moved from de-wiki. The 500-DDM-averse and the other bills uploaded by Moja were kept.
East German bills were issued by the government of East Germany, and as the Federal Republic of Germany is its legal successor, these fall under PD-GermanGov. The other [[::Category:Banknotes of East Germany|Banknotes of East Germany]] are licensed so. -- burts ∞ 11:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, that sounds correct. I would however like some more opinions before undeleting. -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I found Template:PD-GDR stamps, which indicates that such works are indeed in public domain. Undeleted. -- Bryan (talk to me) 12:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Galaxy clusters[edit]

In order to move the misspelled category Category:Galaxy Clusters (see Category:Galaxy clusters). --Juiced lemon 08:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted. --MichaelMaggs 21:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Fabien Barthez.jpg[edit]

Please restore the older deleted version of that image. It was replaced incorrectly by a new very different (but better quality) image and then deleted. The correct way to replace an image should be to upload the new image under a different name, and then keep both images. If someone wants the old image deleted it should be done through a deletion request. /90.229.135.239 14:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the precedent message! Sanguinez 20:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved. --MichaelMaggs 20:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved how? The image has not been restored, and no reason has been given to not restore it. /90.229.135.239 21:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --MichaelMaggs 21:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Arraya.svg[edit]

Restore Image:Arraya.svg Please restore Image:Arraya.svg I am the Illustrator who developed this graphic; this picture is copyright free.

It was deleted as lacking licencing information. Feel free to log back in and reupload it with attribution and copyright tagging included. -- Infrogmation 22:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closing. Not undeleted. --MichaelMaggs 20:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Meijer Gardens 01.jpg[edit]

An image of the same statue was kept (wrongfully, IMO), see Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Grand Rapids Cavallo 2.jpg. We should either restore Image:Meijer Gardens 01.jpg, or delete Image:Grand Rapids Cavallo 2.jpg. --Kjetil r 11:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These statues are in the en:Frederik Meijer Gardens and Sculpture Park in the United States. There is no FoP in the US. Both images should IMO be speedy deleted because they are a derivative work of a copyrighted work by living artist Nina Akumu and there is no permission (copyright violation). Cheers! Siebrand 12:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I kept the "Cavallo" image because the argument by User:Marco Bonavoglia convinced me: "Nina Akamu's work is also a derivative work since it's based on Leonardo's design for the Horse. Second point: a twin statue is in Milan and it follows the Italian law, so its photograph can be published. The two Horses are identical!" and by User:JeremyA: "If this statue is an identical copy of the original then it is not a derivative work—in a copy there is no new creative work and so no new copyright is established. If this statue differs from the original, then it is a derivative work, in which case the artist has copyright protection of her work."
The "new" horse by Akamu is therefore not copyrightable and therefore a photo of it is a derivative work of PD statue. (See discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Grand Rapids Cavallo 2.jpg)
So I would say: Restore Image:Meijer Gardens 01.jpg --ALE! ¿…? 12:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, if the statue is a pure copy of a PD statue, we should undelete this one. -- Bryan (talk to me) 12:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make a couple of points clear:
1) Ms. Akamus statue is a 3D creative and personal interpretation of a mere drawing. This is not, therefore, a derivative work (as it would be a cast of a sculpture: for one such case see here, and related discussion).
Actually, when the horse was donated to Milan, a dispute arouse on the fact that it should not have been called "Leonardo's" horse, but rather "Akamu's", since it has nothing in common with Leonardo's one (about which nothing but the drawing survives), apart for the pose, which per se is not copyrightable...
Furthermore, and more important, the Italian law does not allow "freedom of Panorama", as per here. User:Marco Bonavoglia should not have, therefore, "convinced" anybody, since he is actually saying the opposite of what our laws state...
Last but not least, whereas the Usa allow freedom of panorama, their law explicity excludes sculptures from it: (quote) "For artworks, even if permanently installed in public places, the U.S. copyright law has no similar exception, and any publication of an image of a copyrighted artwork thus is subject to the approval of the copyright holder of the artwork." (unquote). Ms Akamu's permission must therefore be obtained. This image is a copyviol and should be therefore deleted, unless somone writes Ms Akamus to be granted written permission to reproduce her works (maybe all of her works: that would be great!) in Commons.
Like it or not, this is the law, and these are the rules the Wikimedia foundation - they, not me - decided to stick to. --User:G.dallorto 13:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
+1 --Polarlys 13:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So it's not a pure copy... In that case this one should stay deleted and the other one deleted as well. -- Bryan (talk to me) 13:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This image is actually a cast of a copyrighted sculpture. Or to say it better, this horse is an artwork that was created in two specimens, one in Milan, the second one in the Usa. From a technical point of view, none is a "cast" of the other one, since they were both fused using the same mould at the same time. So both specimens are of course copyrighted from the start. Yet I think that asking Ms Akamu for the permission could be a good solution of our dilemma. --User:G.dallorto 13:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds good, but in the meantime the image is not allowed on Commons. It was deleted by Polarlys. -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closing. Not undeleted --MichaelMaggs 20:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Villa savoye avant.jpg and Image:Villa savoye cote.jpg[edit]

A copy of some User_talk: at 12:50, 27 June 2007 MECU deleted Image:Villa savoye avant.jpg and Image:Villa savoye cote.jpg claiming there is "no freedom of panorama in France". Well I thought there was. Why was there no link provided where this restriction can be verified before proceeding to delete the files? Why are they not mentioned on the list of deletion requests? I cannot even find these contributions to the much needed integrity of content on Commons in said user's list of User contributions so the thought occured there might be many more images in need of some protection against this. Greetings, Ivory 03:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Reply copied from User talk page to keep the discussion together)

Please see Freedom of panorama#France for more information. They were speedily deleted which explains why there isn't a deletion request either. You saw the deletion log for the images which is the only record that you can see for these images then. You can ask another admin to review or go to Commons:Undeletion requests for more information as well. MECU≈talk 12:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(End copy from user talk page)

As you see, the undeletion request had been alive and kicking for almost ten hours when you posted your reply. The thought occurs, are there perhaps more things that we should be paying more attention to? I fully understand the need to uphold the law and all that, remove bad files, but this whole procedure has been very ugly so far. So is there a reason why were they as speedily deleted as they were? And why was I not informed of that reason in the very first place, why do I have to ask so expressly? And let 's keep the discussion in one place for clarity's sake. Ivory 15:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I actually looked here, but missed it I guess, which is why I replied on your talk page. Either way, these (and several others I deleted that day) are copyright violations because there isn't a freedom of panorama in France. Buildings are copyrighted so you can not license a free image here at Commons, and without a free picture, we can't accept it here at Commons. I would be happy to put {{Copyvionote}} on your talk page for these images if you would like, but that wouldn't help much. Since they are copyvio's there isn't a need for a deletion request. This and the other images were in Category:Villa Savoye which I then deleted after deleting all the images for the same reason: Copyvio|Villa Savoye is a work of art / in France, there is no freedom of panorama / Le Corbusier died in 1965 -> not "pd-old". MECU≈talk 15:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I guess that clears it up then. Thank you for your good work. No need to bombard my talk page with automated or otherwise helpless notes, I will complain as and when the need arises:-). Ivory 15:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closing. Not undeleted --MichaelMaggs 20:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Philips logo.svg[edit]

Logo of the electronics company Philips was deleted as a copyvio, but the logo is just the word "Philips" in Gill Sans typeface, and cannot be copyrighted. It was tagged as {{PD-textlogo}}. --Hautala 15:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now seems properly tagged. --MichaelMaggs 20:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Enna1-Euno, Castello di Lombardia.JPG and Image:Enna5-Teatro Garibaldi.jpg[edit]

I am the photographer of these pictures, so it is obvious that they aren't copyviol as it was written. They should be restored because they were used in 3 featured articles in Italian Wikipedia. Thank you! (Licence: as before). --User:max Canal 1.00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

If you take images of a book, you create a derivative work. So unless the book was licensed under free license, the images will not be undeleted. -- Bryan (talk to me) 10:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I took from a book only the 10 images about holy week. Instead, I didn't take these 2 images from a book, because I just took them normally, as the other images I uploaeded. So I ask these 2 images to be undeleted, because I didn't take them from any book. --User:max Canal 1.00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
As I said directly to Max, being the author of these two pictures he can easily scan the original pictures and then upload them. The pictures as he uploaded the first time are of very, VERY, bad quality, completely out of focus due to the picture of a picture. Dantadd✉ 23:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not undeleted. --MichaelMaggs 20:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:A pequena sereia.jpg[edit]

It was marked derivative work. What does this mean? I took the picture myself with my camera and then scanned it... Salgueiro 08:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that might refer to Denmark not having freedom of panorama and that sculptor Edvard Eriksen died in 1958, which is less than 70 years ago. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then the other three pictures of the Little Mermaid would have to be deleted too, wouldn't they? Salgueiro 07:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Please tag them for deletion. --MichaelMaggs 20:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not undeleted. --MichaelMaggs 20:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:In memorian FML.png[edit]

No reason for speedy delection. This image is only a last screenshot of my last user page (see too [2]).

It's history, because I never will edit my user page again. As my last request in the Wikipedia project, I ask for, please, keep this last screenshot of my user page. Thank you. --FML hello 00:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment FML was blocked for three months on pt.wikipedia after a community decision. Their block has been expired and now he is acting dramatically. This screenshot from their userpage is only one piece of their dramatic puzzle and IMHO fails under project scope. Lugusto • ※ 00:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user (Lugusto/555) have a long history of fight against my person and he also have a history of problems with Portuguese Wikipedia. My older user page screenshot can be used to an example of a user page, can be used to ilustrate, for example, how to a html page is rendered or how a wiki page can be render. Or, for example, how to a software called "HTML to Image" transform a HTML on image. This free image have any kinds of use, and I reforce my last request on this project too, because this is the last history about me on Wikipedia. Please, restore this image. Thanks. --FML hello 01:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to distrust Lugustu who is an editor in good standing. I think that you, FML, should try and find a reliable user who agrees with you (an admin at pt wiki would be good). / Fred J 17:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I change my mind. Forget it. FML hello 00:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not undeleted. --MichaelMaggs 05:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:CDD Natural Areas(Clark).jpg[edit]

I made this image myself. I've never uploaded anything I didn't make myself. I did not get your message in time to add the tag you described. I don't know how to get it back. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Ndamato (talk • contribs) 14:29, 4 July 2007

Undeleted. Please choose a suitable copyright tag, such as {{PD-Self}}, {{self|GFDL}}, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0}} or {{self|GFDL|cc-by-2.5}} and add it to the page. If you do not do this within 7 days, the image will be deleted again. -- Bryan (talk to me) 08:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re-deleting per Bryan as 7 day have passed and still no copyright tag has been added. --MichaelMaggs 10:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:NYC subway simplified map 50pct-optimized.png[edit]

SPUI has said this is a reduced version of the original image and he drew the original image himself. See here for more discussion. Personally I think these should be undeleted, and the tagging removed. I looked at the asserted sources (this map: [3] and or this one:[4])which the copyvio claim is based on, and they have the same information but are not drawn in the same style. ++Lar: t/c 14:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh heck. I just took it on my own recognizance to act... I undeleted the image, and removed the copyvio tagging, per Bryan doing the same to the original unreduced image. If Jeff G has an issue with it we can still discuss it here and if I'm reversed, so be it. ++Lar: t/c 14:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Support undeletion. / Fred J 19:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The design of the New York City subway system and all of its components, including maps of it and the line symbols used on those maps, are copyrighted by the MTA and its ancestors. Two such current maps are http://mta.info/nyct/maps/submap.htm and http://mta.info/nyct/maps/subwaymap.pdf. How were Image:NYC subway map.png, and consequently its children Image:NYC subway simplified map.png, Image:NYC subway simplified map 50pct-optimized.png, Image:NYC subway simplified map 33pct-optimized.png, Image:NYC subway simplified map 25pct-optimized.png, Image:NYC subway origins.png, Image:1939 IND Second System.jpg, and Image:PlanMetroNY2.png, not violations of those copyrights?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that you can copyright the fact that station X is located at Y and that there is a subway between station Q and R. The map itself may be copyrighted, but the data is not, and the symbols are to trivial to be copyrighted. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) To me this is (by common sense) clearly not a violation based on those two images cited since they are not the same. I think you may be interpreting that copyright in an overly broad manner. Any map that is a representation of features of the earth, drawn from knowledge of those features, and not directly a copy of another map, is not a copyright violation of any other particular map. (for if it was it would be impossible to produce any map whatever that was free of hindrance) So it is, I assert, possible to draw a map of the New York Subway system lines, which are features of the earth. The letters and numbers used to designate the lines are a kind of knowledge of the features of the earth, just as the name of a town, or the reporting marks of a railway line, or a highway number are a kind of knowledge of the features of the earth (even if the railway reporting marks are a trademark of the railway company, they are nevertheless used on maps as identification). So it is, I assert, possible to correctly label such a map with the correct line designations. With me so far? If so then it is not impossible to create an accurate map of the subway system that is free. What remains is to determine if this map, which is substantially different in appearance than both of the maps you cited as evidence of copyright violation, nevertheless violates copyrights of the MTA or predecessors. What is the basis of the claim that it does? The colors used? That's trade dress, not copyright (still may be deletion bait in that case) The use of shapes for various line designation symbols? The shapes are squares and circles, not distinctive symbols... very simply geometry, and thus not copyrightable.... perhaps trade dress though... Let me know before I go further, but here's a thought starter question, if you disagree with me, what parts do you agree with, and what would the changes be that would be needed to make a map of the subway not a copyright violation? ++Lar: t/c 21:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that you cannot copyright "designs", as you say in your opening remark "The design of the New York City subway system "... you can only get design patents, or protect with trademark. Only representations can be copyrighted. ++Lar: t/c 21:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An aside: Let's not mix Image:1939 IND Second System.jpg in with these others, please. That image is a scan of a previously published image. All the others you mention are reasonably assumed to be derived from one master image (since they are resized or translated) that is claimed to have been drawn, and does not match any of the examples you gave unless I am mistaken. ...Image:1939 IND Second System.jpg in my view may well be a copyvio, just because a document does not assert copyright, that does not place it in the public domain, and the copyright has not yet expired on it, and I would prefer not to muddy things by mixing it in. ++Lar: t/c 21:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given the enhanced source information revealed in the discussions above and at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Attention#How were these (Image:1888 OCRR.gif, Image:NYC subway simplified map.png and Image:NYC subway simplified map 50pct-optimized.png) copyvios?, I have changed my mind. I now support undeleting Image:NYC subway simplified map 50pct-optimized.png and Image:PlanMetroNY2.png, and I am sorry for any inconvenience. Please incorporate the enhanced source information into those images' description pages. Thank you for your attention to this matter.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 16:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I undeleted Image:PlanMetroNY2.png, but I can't find the 33 and 25 percent images... I am not clear they are needed though, since thumbnailing works well enough doesn't it? Since SPUI is on hiatus/retired/vacation, perhaps I'll take it on myself to write something up for these, and include it in all of the images... what do you think is key to include? I'd rather not just dump the entire text in there :) :) ... analysis of how these images were derived? Any suggestions would be great! ++Lar: t/c 16:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See Template:NYC_Subway_map. Comments welcomed or just fix it! I'll add it to the images that it applies to. I confess I cannot find the 25% and 33% ones, if anyone knows their names please let me know, thanks! ++Lar: t/c 01:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As for the mysterious 25% and 33% images, it seems SPUI found an interesting quirk in how images are cached... if you look at Image:NYC subway map.png you will see that SPUI (presumably) added some links directly into the cache for 25, 33 and 50 percent versions. These images do not exist independently, they are cached downsized versions of the original, which is why we could not find the 25 and 33 precent versions... it's debatable as to whether that actually adds any value but it's interesting. At any rate this is sorted, Fred undeleted, I added a justification to these and many other Category:Maps of New York City Subway images and we are all set... ✓ Done Thanks all! ++Lar: t/c 00:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Biennale Di Venezia 2006 IllyMind.jpg[edit]

Why was this pic deleted? Why is this a "derivative work"? --AM 09:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Support. Good question. Some logotypes appear in the image, but not too prominently to be considered de minimis. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Please undelete my pic. Otherwise I will reupload it! --AM 16:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted. -- Bryan (talk to me) 18:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you, Bryan. But, beside of this I can't understand, why almost all pics in Venice Biennale have been deleted. Regards, --AM 20:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They were deleted because they were considered Derivative work of the work of the architect. If you know that the picture was taken in a country that has Commons:Freedom of Panorama, they may be undeleted. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are all taken in Italy, which has NO freedom of panorama as I learned. But if this really is a fact, most of the pics at Category:Buildings in Italy must be deleted. This is ridiculous. --AM 21:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would that mean, that you can't take a photo of the italian Pavillon at the Venice Biennale and upload it here? --AM 21:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well this is due to the Italian law, not something Commons can help. / Fred J 08:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

It was "outdated", but I never got the chance to update it. Only small changes are needed. I will only be available today, so if it cannot be undeleted quickly, please wait a little to make use some other editor can edit it to resemble Image:Spermatophyta.png. --193.17.11.20 13:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion request page is here: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Spermatophyta.svg. --Ysangkok 13:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And no, I do not have the file locally. --Ysangkok 13:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done -- Bryan (talk to me) 14:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Lego Spongebob 2006 sets.jpg[edit]

From the deletion log for this image: 21:32, 13 July 2007 Petrusbarbygere (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Image:Lego Spongebob 2006 sets.jpg" (This file is a copyright violation because it depicts a creative work which is copyrighted and not published under a free license. (See Commons:Derivative works). The file is subject to speedy deletion.)

This is a depiction of a product. We have product depictions all over the place here. Products are not, themselves, copyrighted, only artwork or packaging is copyrightable. Further, this picture was taken by me, with permission from LEGO, (by special invitation, in fact, as the sets had not yet been made publicly available) and with no restrictions on redistribution of the image. This was clearly explained in the item description. Therefore I think this speedy was not a good deletion and should be overturned. The tag added to it (the revision history is not completely clear on whether it was by D-Slay (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) or by Petrusbarbygere (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) although Petrusbarbygere was the deleting admin) is not accurate. ++Lar: t/c 05:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've undeleted it. / Fred J 08:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any chance of removing the watermark, Lar? Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs|Flickr review status nom) 00:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On set 3825? That's printed into the box, if I recall correctly, (since the box was preproduction packaging) it was not added after the image was taken by me. Removing it would be altering what the box looked like so I'm not sure that's a good approach. I don't personally have these sets (although I do have a lot of other LEGO) so I can't personally provide a replacement picture, unfortunately. If you mean something else, let me know. I do know I did not add a watermark. My watermarks are a lot more visible. For example this which I use in some of my sales stuff, shows it pretty clearly. ++Lar: t/c 00:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Letters by alphabet[edit]

I request the undeletion of Category:Letters by alphabet in order to sort subcategories of Category:Letters, as in the English Wikipedia Category:Letters by alphabet. --Juiced lemon 10:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted Siebrand 08:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Francisco Solano Lopez.jpg[edit]

Please undelete this image as soon as possible. It is used in various featured articles. The "no source" claim should be reevaluated.. Perhaps it would have been solved if CommonsTicker was active? --Stigmj 14:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might like to check with User:Montag73 who uploaded it on 3 Dec 2005, but didn't specify where it came from. It was later tagged as {{PD-Old}}, but that's not enough on its own and unless you know or can find out what the source of the image was I'm afraid it can't be retained on Commons. Sorry. --MichaelMaggs 15:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done Siebrand 08:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Anneliese.jpg[edit]

Please undelete —the preceding unsigned comment is by 211.30.48.217 (talk • contribs) 11:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to your failure to provide a reason to undelete it, Image:Anneliese.jpg has never existed, and therefore it has never been deleted and cannot be undeleted. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2007-07&oldid=20453632"