Copyright Alliance (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Deletion in May 2011 was for lack of general notability, or even (improperly) WP:ONEEVENT. However, I'm now redlinking the organization from Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade Act, which uses references to it from the past few days in the New York Times and CNet.^[1][2] SOPA, a matter of considerable interest to Wikipedia, should also link to it. I contacted User:Cirt, who closed the deletion, but is not currently an administrator, hoping he might have a delegate for such matters, but he didn't recommend anyone specifically, so I've posted this here. I understand that I may need to add a few of these references to the undeleted article to establish its notability against future deletion attempts. Wnt (talk) 23:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC) Wnt (talk) 23:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy. A reasonable request from a good faith user, with new sources sufficient to supersede the old AfD.—S Marshall T/C 23:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support userfication per S Marshall. If no one objects, I'll go ahead and userfy the article tomorrow. This looks like an obvious case of new sources obsoleting the old discussion. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• A userification doesn't even need DRV approval unless there's been a previous ruling to NOT allow such--which is usually only in cases of copyright, promotion, or attack pages. Jclemens (talk) 05:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to do that, it'll be appreciated. ;) But a proper undeletion where I can look through the full history and where proper credit is given to the original authors would be preferable if you'll allow it. I don't want to infringe any of the editors' copyrights there, after all. ;) Wnt (talk) 16:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The userfication will undelete the material including all its contribution history. It will appear in your userspace. You can then add appropriate references before moving the whole page back to mainspace (with its history intact).—S Marshall T/C 17:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh... never realized that, sorry! Wnt (talk) 17:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:A549 bridges -- 7-28-at1616.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Was never placed on IFD, but admins refuse to undelete it at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. It is a free, encyclopedic image of my own work that I uploaded that contrary to the deleting admin (who didn't look at the image closely enough), it was not a duplicate of a Commons image. John Riemann Soong (talk) 03:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• As I said on the WP:REFUND thread, the images are bit for bit identical. Any admin can look at the full size picture for both the commons version and the deleted wikipedia version and see they both hash to 6be87eaea86c8ce92c51d46ea4b0e144 (w/ MD5). Protonk (talk) 04:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• But the local copy was rudely deleted without my knowledge. Could I please have it back? John Riemann Soong (talk) 06:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know how else to say this. That's the same photo. Nothing stops you from uploading it to wikipedia again under the old name or a new name. Protonk (talk) 07:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps for clarity migrating free images to commons, is normal practice and not indicative of any rudeness/whatever. I'm not sure why you particularly think a local copy is either required or desirable, when exactly the same image was copied to commmons and is freely available there. From the projects perspective the advantages of it being local are somewhat small (and really only related to if commons decides to delete it for some reason, which would normally be a duplicative or copyright concern). --82.19.4.7 (talk) 06:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I've got a question for each of you. John Riemann Soong, your images are available on Commons, so I don't yet understand why it's necessary to have extremely similar ones on Wikipedia as well: could you explain? And Protonk, please could you explain why it's necessary to be obstructive and unhelpful in response to this good faith user's request? You have said, and I quote: I will not restore those images. You may download them from commons and reupload them to wikipedia under a different name if you wish. I find this response, made to a sporadic but rather productive editor, quite unsatisfactory.—S Marshall T/C 12:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur, after this edit the image should have been restored, rather than telling the user to reupload it himself. With regards to the motivations for undeleting the article, see also this village pump discussion. Yoenit (talk) 13:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Magog the ogre restored the image, so this thread can be closed. Yoenit (talk) 13:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Since Protonk does not deny that he was being needlessly obstructive and bureaucratic, I'll go with restore as has already been done.—S Marshall T/C 08:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]