File:Outlook Express XP Icon.png ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| restore)

I've been forced to come here because my request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 91#File:Outlook Express XP Icon.png was first denied and then ignored, and the deleting administrator seems to have disappeared from Wikipedia. This image is the icon of the last version of the program, the one included in Windows XP. The icon currently at Outlook Express is that of an older version. Precedent (other articles include up-to-date icons) and consistency (with the screenshot currently at the article, which is that of the last version) dictate that the icon currently at the article should be replaced with this one. Dogmaticeclectic ( talk) 12:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC) reply

• Comment I suspect if you said at the request for undeletion that this was a replacement image and that the old image could then be deleted, you'd probably have got a different response. I don't believe wikipedia recognises precdent as such, but there doesn't seem to be any discussion suggesting such a change would be controversial, so I can't see why the restore of this, delete of the current can't be actioned. -- 86.5.93.42 ( talk) 21:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC) reply
• Restore and delete the old one I guess. Seems a reasonable request which no one has objected to. Hobit ( talk) 10:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC) reply

File:Windows Mail logo.png ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| restore)

I've been forced to come here because my request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 91#File:Windows Mail logo.png was basically ignored, and the deleting administrator seems to have left Wikipedia. This image was deleted due to a lack of licensing information, but I can provide this information along with a fair use rationale for the article Windows Mail, which does not currently have the icon of the program. (Note that the licensing information is quite obvious in this case, given that it's the icon of a program.) Dogmaticeclectic ( talk) 12:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC) reply

• Comment The requirement is that each such image has a fair use rationale and suitable licensing information, not that "it's obvious" (Which is usually code for "someone else can do it"). Can't see why this couldn't be restored if you undertake providing the suitable information within a short time frame of restoration. -- 86.5.93.42 ( talk) 21:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC) reply
• In fairness, that is pretty obvious.— S Marshall T/ C 16:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC) reply
• Restore a FUR can be reasonably written here. Hobit ( talk) 10:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC) reply