Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:39, 28 November 2009

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

Current requests

File:E haplogroup.gif

I was aware of copyright issues when I created this image. I wanted to maintain as much likeness to the contours of the image on the source, to portray as accurately as possible the frequencies of the specific lineages. But I created a different image using the File:BlankMap-World-noborders.png as a background. Muntuwandi (talk) 22:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still believe its a DW from this protected map Huib talk 22:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the description of that map, the contour lines in it were automatically generated by computer from the referenced table of frequency data. As such, I doubt there's anything eligible for copyright in the maps except perhaps for the color scheme. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I support allowing this user to re-generate a map using the same data, but not copying the existing map. -Nard the Bard 13:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bismarck mit Doggen im Park.jpg

I probably forget with the first upload some information. Because I'm so often here I got the information too late. Today I've made a second upload with information on author, license and permission. Nontheless it was deleted with the comment: re-created by user, still no authorship information on the original photograph. But there was an inormation on the author, it is an own work and so I am the author. I can't imagine what problem is. --Polemos (talk) 15:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The question is who created the photograph. If it was taken in 1880, it may still be in copyright depending on who the photographer was (and when he died).--Nilfanion (talk) 08:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy'ed files with {military Insignia}

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

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

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

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

Oppose These files have had 2 years for proper licensing to be found. Someone properly marked them as not having proper licensing and someone else properly deleted them as such. I would support undeletion only if you are able to supply proper licensing. If you cannot then undeleting them is a waste of everybody's time as they will get redeleted again shortly. -Nard the Bard 14:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These were files uploaded prior to the 2007 date (i.e. before the tag in question was deprecated). So, it isn't sure if anyone really has tried to find licensing. I'm sure many would still have to be deleted though. I think the nominator is saying these should go through a DR and not be speedied. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The template says the files will only be deleted after a DR. We need more users to help cleanup. I'm sure that there is people out there who has some of these on their to-do-list but as with a speedy they get no warning that it is time to look at excactly these files. We can't just speedy +8,000 files when template says they are safe until someone makes a DR. --MGA73 (talk) 17:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMO there has been a procedural irregularity in this matter. It wasn't clear that there was a two-year deadline for finding licensing etc. The template isn't crystal clear enough and it's very annoying to suddenly discover that this and that image have been deleted on Wikimedia. The bot CommonsDelinker automatically removes dead image links on Wikipedia, why couldn't there be a bot inserting "The xx image is due for deletion because of yy" on the relevant pages. On the English Wikipedia you'll get a warning for the local fair-use images. At the moment it isn't very user-friendly and people might start storing images on the local Wikis. --Necessary Evil (talk) 22:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I second the request that uploaders be warned before their files are deleted. - Jmabel ! talk 23:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

oppose yeah there have been a mistake by deleting them all as speedy but the uses are removed now so undeletion isn't going to help a lot, I oppose to undelete for a dr but I do support undeletion if somebody finds a good source en license. Huib talk 17:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but not all users are admins and can see the deleted images and pages. So how on earth are they going to find out if image could be saved? --MGA73 (talk) 17:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Besides we have [2] that can help admins that delete images by a mistake. --MGA73 (talk) 17:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support There are many old files (2005-2006) with source and license tagging irregularities. However deleting them is not the way to go. Sv1xv (talk) 18:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support We have processes for proper deletion of images, we entrust admins to use the tools following the rules and not take shortcuts for other reasons. Allowing this just sets a precedent and more such deletions will probably follow. There was obviously no urgency in the need for deletion (2 years?), a mistake has been made and needs to be reverted. It is obvious that none of the images are going to have licensing found once they have been deleted because most of us (the people who do the majority of the work here due to shear numbers) are not admins, and can no longer see the images. --Tony Wills (talk) 19:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Deletion was way out of process. Deleter should be desysopped, depending on follow-up.--Elvey (talk) 18:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: We need to get rid of deprecated licenses, that for sure. But speedying all those 8000+ files without even making a DR and notifying the original uploaders isn't appropriate. If there's a specific problem with one of these files or with some of them, they should either be tagged with {{subst:nld}} or brought to a DR. I think it's important that the users who did this in good faith aren't passed over. It's still Humans who edit this media database. Fed up users can do the Commons more harm than 0.16 % of possibly unfree files which are marked for reusers that they might not be free. --The Evil IP address (talk) 12:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The general problem

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

If the uploader isn't there anymore, someone else can add a license or source, but will be very harder. But regardless, we delete away. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 08:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you regardless delete away ? I am really sorry to see this demonstration of copyright extremism. Sv1xv (talk) 16:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It happens all of the time. Plus, anyone can change the license of an image (not just the uploader) if we have what could fit next. For example in these sets of images, I found one image of a Russian Insignia; it was changed to where it was PD in Russia for being a state symbol. But I checked the talk page of the uploaders; they been told before in 2007, 1008 and 2009 and still done nothing. It happens on other projects too; we cannot let uploader's absence hurt us. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 17:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. Of course if some obviously public domain image has a wrong license tag, I do change it as well. No problem there. It becomes more complicated, however, when an image may still be copyrighted.

However I am worried by the phrase "But regardless, we delete away". What exactly do you mean? Sv1xv (talk) 17:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless if the uploader is here or not, we still delete images if they do not respond. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 17:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I strongly oppose this view. It is exteme deletionism. Sv1xv (talk) 17:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because they cannot respond? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 17:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because you delete useful images based on a technical problem for which the uploader was not responsible. These issues could have been easily resolved when the tag became deprecated. Sv1xv (talk) 18:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technical problem? Since when is licensing just a "technical problem"? The original military Insignia template falsely claimed military Insignia was copyright free, and people uploaded stuff from all over the web on that basis. Many of them can be relicensed (PD-US-Gov, PD-shape, etc) but the ones that cannot be are not free and should be deleted. It would take you less time to re-create these files with inkscape than what it would take to track down sources and licenses for these files or argue about them. -Nard the Bard 19:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You accuse the uploaders for a problem which was caused inadvertently by Commons housekeepers. The contributors who uploaded the images were (mis)guided to believe that {{Military Insignia}} was a valid license. They thought that they were releasing their work in the public domain. I believe I am clear enough. Sv1xv (talk) 19:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a solution could be to recreate the lost images. But if some admin just decides to nuke them with no warning it is much harder for others to make a new version. It would be better and "after the book" to make a DR. That way others have a chance to comment or make a new file if they want to. When the file is deleted only admins can see the file. Anyway I can't understand why we do not have the time to do it right. If the file has been her for two years it could be here a week more while things are checked properly.

I say undelete and make check if relicense is possible or if not make a DR. --MGA73 (talk) 19:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Someone appears to have marked all old military Insignia files with no license. Since you were all complaining about not getting notice I figured I'd tell you. -Nard the Bard 02:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Seems they have not read the "conditions". It says that a DR is the proper thing to do. Besides uplader was not warned! --MGA73 (talk) 04:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Laszlo - Archbishop Dr. Cosmo Lang.jpg

13:24, 22 July 2009 Kameraad Pjotr (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:Laszlo - Archbishop Dr. Cosmo Lang.jpg" ‎ (Copyright violation: this painting was published in The Art of Philip de László: An Appreciation; Apollo, July 1933, p. 16.[3]
Have I missed a new policy? Couldn't find a deletion request with details. Mutter Erde 92.230.107.14 20:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Painting from 1932, British artist, died in 1937. Now public domain in the UK, but still copyrighted in the U.S. (until 2028). Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What?? Is this one of these incomprehensible URAA things? Just ignore such complications -

Support. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's incomprehensible about "the US doesn't have the rule of the shorter term"?--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} made for such cases? --Túrelio (talk) 10:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was just noting it. I'm not an admin, so I didn't delete it, and I don't know the true reasoning. For what it's worth, I would be much more inclined to delete URAA-restored works like novels and paintings than I would photographs... those typically carry much more financial value, and for a much longer period of time. The URAA is still the law. The image probably should not have been speedied, though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arte Image

The image uploades is from a painting that belongs to Caramulo Museum collection for over 50 years now. Thanks

Salvador — Preceding unsigned comment added by Museudocaramulo (talk • contribs) 22:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please identify the file and sign your entries per the instructions above. If the file you refer to is File:Arte2.jpg, the log for that file suggests you uploaded a work by Fernand Léger. Léger has not been dead for more than 70 years, so the copyright to his works has not expired, and the immaterial rights to his works are held by his estate, regardless of material ownership of any of his works or copies thereof. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Portail Sylvipedia Illustration.jpg

I nominated this file for deletion back in June 2008 because it combined works under the incompatible GFDL and CC-by-sa licenses. Now that many GFDL works have been migrated to CC-by-sa through provisions in later versions of the GFDL, I'd like to ask an administrator to review the image and see if undeletion is possible. Thanks! —LX (talk, contribs) 14:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, this image was based on these three photographs: File:Muir Wood10.JPG, File:North Fork Skykomish Trail 0201.jpg, and File:Traditional sawmill - Jerome, Arizona.jpg. The first one has now been migrated to {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} and is no longer a problem. However, the second one was (strangely) licensed under the {{GPL}}, and consequently didn't get migrated (and I don't think it can be, no modifications have been made in newer GPL licenses to allow such a migration, as far as I know). So it seems the license incompatibility still exists, and this image should not be undeleted. –Tryphon ^☂ 15:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the investigation! I'm guessing you're missing an "un" in the last word... Looks like you're right. http://archive.marktaff.com/photos/photoViewer.php?photo=/home/mark_taff/media.marktaff.com/photos/north.fork.skykomish.trail.20050530/20050530_0201.jpg is the full source for File:North Fork Skykomish Trail 0201.jpg, and that's still marked as GPL. However, more newly uploaded photos on Mark's site (which sports Wikipedia donation banners) are CC-by-sa, so getting him to change it might not be so difficult. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, thanks for spotting the missing un; I've added it now, doesn't make much sense otherwise. –Tryphon ^☂ 08:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I asked Mark and got a permission for cc-by-sa-3.0 here https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=4095207. I think we should let another OTRS-volunteer to look at it so we have two pair of eyes on it. The permission is for all his files on Commons/Wikipedia. --MGA73 (talk) 15:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Vals

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

Two files, both American Govt files

(Deletion log); 16:47 . . Rama (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:Lindsey - fdic.jpg" (No credible author given, possible copyvio.)
(Deletion log); 16:47 . . Rama (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:Ossur - Iceland.png" (No credible author given, possible copyvio.)

Both gave "credible author" as the American embassy in Iceland (where the photo was taken, and who hosted the photo) and FDIC (who hosted the photo on FDIC.gov with no other claims of ownership), yet both were deleted. I'd like to see them both restored. Sherurcij (talk) 21:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The messages you received on your user talk page but repeatedly insisted on blanking (see Commons:Talk page guidelines#Can I do whatever I want to my own user talk page?) explained the problem. You only provided a direct link to the images, which does not allow others to verify their copyright status by seeing the images in context.

For reference, it seems File:Lindsey - fdic.jpg, whose source was stated as http://www.fdic.gov/bank/analytical/bank/images/lindsey.jpg, was taken from http://www.fdic.gov/bank/analytical/bank/bt0206.html. File:Ossur - Iceland.png, whose source was stated as http://iceland.usembassy.gov/uploads/t6/cJ/t6cJNy53CYAvooKNOgbikw/TIFA2-2009.JPG, appears to have been taken from http://iceland.usembassy.gov/latest_news/01152009.html. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Files created by employees of the US Government are in the Public Domain. That does not mean "files that happen to be displayed on US Government websites". Indeed, US government websites host a great many files that are not Free at all. Proper attribution must be given (like, for instance, on File:Straw Wolfowicz 011024-D-9880W-030.jpg); undocumented files are unacceptable, whether their website of origin ends in .gov or in .com. Rama (talk) 13:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I remove all comments from my talk page, positive or negative, if there is no need to respond further to them. Since I was talking on HC's talkpage and not my own, I removed the parallel issue from my own talk page (and am absolutely within my rights to do so). Again, I didn't stubbornly insist on deleting them, I have deleted each and every one of (probably) hundreds of talkpage messages from my talkpage. And although a template was put on the files and my talkpage saying that I had used a direct link rather than an html link - that is not grounds for deletion. Sherurcij (talk) 19:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I would recommend reading Commons:Talk page guidelines#Can I do whatever I want to my own user talk page? You're free to keep a clean user talk page, but please do so by archiving, just as you would with old discussions on any other talk page when it gets lengthy. Simply blanking comments without any sort of archiving does tend to get users blocked here. On a more practical level, blanking discussions also makes it more difficult for others to assist you with requests like the above when one has to dig through page history diffs to see what has been communicated in the matter.

Missing verifiable source information is indeed grounds for deletion. Normally, the uploader is given several days' notice to correct such problems, but I think your response to the notification may have been interpreted as an intention not to provide the missing information, which may in turn have led to the admittedly rather hasty deletion. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Government websites are generally pretty good about noting photographs taken from non-U.S. government sources. The general assumption is that any others are taken by U.S Government employees, and these appear to be fine. The DoD does a excellent job of documenting actual photographers but most agencies don't. In no way should they ever have been speedied; that is only for obvious copyvios and these are far from obvious -- in fact they are almost obviously fine. The first comes from an old FDIC magazine (PDF version here), article by Susan Burhouse of the FDIC, so that would seem to be the most likely author. An FDIC magazine would absolutely attribute it better if it came from an outside source. Images posted as news items on embassy websites should also be pretty obviously from their own photographers unless noted otherwise.

Support undeletion. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Selected images of User:Quahadi

This is a follow-up to Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2009-11#User:Abigor and mass deletions! and Commons:Deletion requests/Images of User:Quahadi. I agreed to look over nearly 600 images by Quahadi (talk · contribs) which were deleted for poor quality. Of those, I think the following 204 images should be kept, or at least examined more closely. (Some of them could be improved by having blurry portions cropped, etc. - I've marked them individually in a sandbox page.) It would probably be good if someone would restore these and put them in a gallery so people can take a look. Thanks.

Wknight94 ^talk 03:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm brand new as an admin, I think I'm probably not the best person to do something this large on my own say-so, but I'm entirely in favor of these being restored, if Wknight94 will take the responsibility to follow up. - Jmabel ! talk 04:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Follow up" how? If you mean to create a gallery and make sure people are in agreement on which to restore, etc., then certainly. Wknight94 ^talk 04:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just browsed through the +3000 remaining uploads by this user. I find it depressing. I see no point in cropping blurry parts, etcetera. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose, I just checked some random files and I don't see how we can make them in our scope.

File:Klobuk05777.JPG - blurry tree, useless.

File:Lištica09016.JPG - blurry trees with some water.

File:Ljubinje05207.JPG - blurry road.

File:Crkva-Ljubuški02004.JPG - blurry and over lighted tower.

File:Gabela05376.JPG - just another blurry road.

File:Ljubinje krajolici04792.JPG - a blurry hill.

File:Ljubinje krajolici-zastava04855.JPG - just another blurry road.

File:Ljubinje04897.JPG - totally blurry.

As far as I see it are none of this files needed otherwhise they would have been in use, I say keep deleted untill somebody comes with a reason they want to use this files.

When we look at our SCOPE we will see:

Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose

Or a reason why it doesn't meet our scope:

Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject, especially if they are of poor or mediocre quality.

I don't see any reason why 100 pictures of a road in blurry format can be used educational, and those files are from a quality that they fall out our scope.

Best regards,

Huib talk 10:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to hear the reasons why Jmabel supports undeletion

I'd like to see them for discussion. The photographer's refusal to use geotagging (which would put them in context) and failures at description hurt, a lot, but I think having a solid body of photography of an area, pictures of things because they're there, is well within our educational scope.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

do I Have to repeat this 1000 times ??? I was taking these pictures travelling .I have no camera with GPS!! Therefore I can not give more precise location nor description-not because I do not want.I AM SIMPLY NOT ABLE TO!! Anto (talk) 08:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, these are pictures of the Croatian countryside. A lot of us will never get to see scenes like this. By Huib's reasoning, we could also delete all of the pictures I took of Tracy Arm, Alaska - they're just water and mountains. Not taken with a professional camera. And the pictures he listed above are not blurry. The blurry ones are in my other list of almost 400 images to keep deleted. I don't understand the urgency to delete the 200 that are perfectly fine. Wknight94 ^talk 12:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Drawing_in_Domus_Galilaeae_church.jpg

The file was deleted based on a false interpretation by Pieter Kuiper of the Israeli law. In several occasions he asked whether 2D works are covered by the FOP principle in its Israeli version. In all of these occasions he was answered: yes. The answers came from people who are well acquainted with the Israeli law, one of them is an Israeli lawyer. Pieter Kuiper, on the other hand, is not a lawyer, never visited Israel, and speaks no word in Hebrew. His interpretation is based upon machine translations of parliamentary hearings that have no relevancy to this case. No other user or admin asked to delete this file, and there is no one who is acquainted with the Israeli law ever contested the legitimacy of this image of images of its kind. Drork (talk) 10:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Drawing in Domus Galilaeae church.jpg. It is not just my interpretation of Israeli law. It is the interpretation of Tamir Afori, the expert of the Israeli Ministry of Justice, the person who had drafted to the text of the 2007 law. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pieter Kuiper is the one who initiated the deletion request, so his objection to the undeletion is quite obvious. Pieter Kuiper does not know who Tamir Afori nor does he know his position. He based his request on a few words said in Hebrew during an Israeli parliamentary hearing. Mr. Kuiper does not speak Hebrew, nor is he acquainted with the procedures of the Israeli parliament. While his document retrieval qualifications are admirable, I'm afraid his findings here are absolutely irrelevant, as often happens when searching in a language which one does not understand. Drork (talk) 11:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given the undeletion request, I would like to elaborate why I ended up with a decision to delete this image. I am not an expert in Israel copyright law nor do I claim to be one. In consequence, I do not attempt to judge the ongoing debate at COM:FOP whether 2D works are covered in Israel or not. All, I can see, is that there is currently no consensus regarding this point. This is best documented by the recent edit war. Given this and the quite long period (nearly half a year) this DR waited to be closed, I followed the precautionary principle and decided to delete it to be on the safe side on copyright law. I suggest to postpone this undeletion request until we can be sure whether this is covered by FOP or not. --AFBorchert (talk) 12:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:PikiWiki Israel 5872 Rishon lezion streets.jpg

Pieter Kuiper based his deletion demand on irrelevant data. It does not matter when the postcard had been produced. According to the Israeli law, what matters is when the image had been taken. If the image depicted on the postcard had been taken before 1959, and there is no design added on or around the image, then the copyrights expired, even if the postcard itself was printed later. Furthermore, the uploader of the image said it was taken between 1950-1970. While I would encourage uploaders to be more precise in the first place, it would be much better for the future to ask the uploader about the precise date before deleting the image. Drork (talk) 11:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose No reason to undelete - probable copyvio. It just shows Drork's cavalier attitude to other people's rights. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, Pieter Kuiper rushes to protect his deletion requests. I don't understand why, I am only offering him a better more relaxed view which assumes good faith before rushing to deletion. Pieter Kuiper is the only person who questioned the good faith of the uploader, and needless to say he did not bother to ask for clarifications. Drork (talk) 11:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader (Drork's project) was notified. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you clearly asked him to be more precise about the dates? And besides, you are well-known here as a master of data retrieval. Did you use these admirable qualifications to look for the exact date before opening a deletion request? If so, why didn't you share your findings with us? Drork (talk) 12:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing - "Pikiwiki" is not my project. It is a project of Wikimedia Israel, the Israeli chapter of the Wikimedia Foundation. This information is available on the Userpage of the project. Drork (talk) 12:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 356: / Line 356: @@
 :{{Oppose}} See [[Commons:Deletion requests/File:Drawing in Domus Galilaeae church.jpg]]. It is not just my interpretation of Israeli law. It is the interpretation of Tamir Afori, the expert of the Israeli Ministry of Justice, the person who had drafted to the text of the 2007 law. /[[User:Pieter Kuiper|Pieter Kuiper]] ([[User talk:Pieter Kuiper|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 11:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 ::Pieter Kuiper is the one who initiated the deletion request, so his objection to the undeletion is quite obvious. Pieter Kuiper does not know who Tamir Afori nor does he know his position. He based his request on a few words said in Hebrew during an Israeli parliamentary hearing. Mr. Kuiper does not speak Hebrew, nor is he acquainted with the procedures of the Israeli parliament. While his document retrieval qualifications are admirable, I'm afraid his findings here are absolutely irrelevant, as often happens when searching in a language which one does not understand. [[User:Drork|Drork]] ([[User talk:Drork|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 11:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
+Given the undeletion request, I would like to elaborate why I ended up with a decision to delete this image. I am not an expert in Israel copyright law nor do I claim to be one. In consequence, I do not attempt to judge the [[Commons talk:Freedom of panorama#Israel painting|ongoing debate]] at [[COM:FOP]] whether 2D works are covered in Israel or not. All, I can see, is that there is currently no consensus regarding this point. This is best documented by the [http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Freedom_of_panorama&diff=32403214&oldid=32402314 recent edit war]. Given this and the quite long period (nearly half a year) this DR waited to be closed, I followed the [[Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle|precautionary principle]] and decided to delete it to be on the safe side on copyright law. I suggest to postpone this undeletion request until we can be sure whether this is covered by FOP or not. --[[User:AFBorchert|AFBorchert]] ([[User talk:AFBorchert|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 12:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 == [[File:PikiWiki_Israel_5872_Rishon_lezion_streets.jpg]] ==

Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 12:39, 28 November 2009

Current requests

Contents

File:E haplogroup.gif

File:Bismarck mit Doggen im Park.jpg

Speedy'ed files with {military Insignia}

The general problem

File:Laszlo - Archbishop Dr. Cosmo Lang.jpg

Arte Image

Image:Portail Sylvipedia Illustration.jpg

Category:Vals

Two files, both American Govt files

Selected images of User:Quahadi

File:Drawing_in_Domus_Galilaeae_church.jpg

File:PikiWiki Israel 5872 Rishon lezion streets.jpg

Navigation menu

Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 12:39, 28 November 2009

Current requests

File:E haplogroup.gif

File:Bismarck mit Doggen im Park.jpg

Speedy'ed files with {military Insignia}

The general problem

File:Laszlo - Archbishop Dr. Cosmo Lang.jpg

Arte Image

Image:Portail Sylvipedia Illustration.jpg

Category:Vals

Two files, both American Govt files

Selected images of User:Quahadi

File:Drawing_in_Domus_Galilaeae_church.jpg

File:PikiWiki Israel 5872 Rishon lezion streets.jpg

Navigation menu

Search