Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive

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

Closed undeletion debates are archived here by SteinsplitterBot.

Recently archived requests


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

File:Historische PLESSEN-Dokumente Rittergut Dolgen ausgefertigte Heimatverzichtserklärungen zu Dolgen im Entwurf, die abgelehnt wurden.pdf

Guten Abend, es handelt sich bei dem gelöschten File um ein familiengeschichtlich relevantes Dokument der Plessen-Familie. Das Dokument ist bzgl. des abgewickelten Rittergutes Dolgen von zentraler Relevanz und erklärt historische Fakten nach der Wiedervereinigung Deutschlands. Das Rittergut Dolgen ist insgesamt von enzyklopädischer Relevanz. MfG --Gordito1869 (talk) 19:21, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

All of the people mentioned are identified by their real names by the Chairman of the Plessen-Family and I therefore see no violations of personal rights through the historical family document. - My mother Rosemarie Pfeiffer (geb. von Plessen) is dead. This is a historical- and one of the last documents of the Dolgener-Plessen-Family and it was the last with of my dead mother to complete the family documents, regarding "Rittergut Dolgen" of her suicided father Leopold Freiherr von Plessen, in an encyclopedic format for all Plessen-members and Wiki-readers. I think the chairman of the Plessen family - User:Christian von Plessen - also agrees, since he has publicly named everyone's real names. " Best regards --Gordito1869 (talk) 07:48, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
@Raymond du hast offenbar eine Oversight Anfrage zu dieser Datei bekommen und diese durchgeführt. Abgesehen davon waren die Angaben zu Autor und Urheberrecht falsche, es müsste auch geklärt werden, woher das Dokument stammt. GPSLeo (talk) 08:21, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Das historische Familiendokument der Plessen stammt - völlig klar erkennbar von User:Christian von Plessen - dem Vorsitzenden des Familienverbandes der Plessen. Ich denke, Herr Rechtsanwalt Dr. jur. Christian von Plessen zu Damshagen & Schönfeld wird mit der Veröffentlichung des historischen Dokuments bzgl. des Rittergutes Dolgen sehr einverstanden sein, da er selber alle Klarnamen öffentlich publiziert hat und immer an einer wahrheitsgemäßen enzyklopädischen Außerdarstellung der Familie von Plessen sehr interessiert ist, so denke ich. Als Rechtsanwalt und Volljurist hat er die Publizierung der Klarnamen hinsichtlich des Datenschutzes ganz sicherlich geprüft, so denke ich. MfG --Gordito1869 (talk) 10:03, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
@GPSLeo Das ist richtig. Der Benutzer mag sich gerne für eine Überprüfung wieder an die Oversighter, aber logischerweise nicht an mich, wenden. Raymond (talk) 10:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
@(Christian von Plessen möge sich zur mögl. Freischaltung äußern) - Das historische Familiendokument der Plessen stammt - völlig klar erkennbar von User:Christian von Plessen - dem Vorsitzenden des Familienverbandes der Plessen. Ich denke, Herr Rechtsanwalt Dr. jur. Christian von Plessen zu Damshagen & Schönfeld wird mit der Veröffentlichung des historischen Dokuments bzgl. des Rittergutes Dolgen sehr einverstanden sein, da er selber alle Klarnamen öffentlich publiziert hat und immer an einer wahrheitsgemäßen enzyklopädischen Außerdarstellung der Familie von Plessen sehr interessiert ist, so denke ich. Als Rechtsanwalt und Volljurist hat er die Publizierung der Klarnamen hinsichtlich des Datenschutzes ganz sicherlich geprüft, so denke ich. Ich bitte hiermit um Freischaltung des Dokuments, da es im Interesse einer enzyklopädisch korrekten Außendarstellung der Ur-Adelsfamilie derer von Plessen liegt. MfG --Gordito1869 (talk) 10:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 Support My vote, the reasons have been explained. Best regards --Gordito1869 (talk) 12:37, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
@Gordito1869: you cannot vote on your own undeletion request. Günther Frager (talk) 12:45, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
I only wanted to express my argument visually. Best regards --Gordito1869 (talk) 13:23, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
The activation of this historical document +++ https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:R%C3%BCckabwicklung_des_Plessengutes_Dolgen_am_See.pdf&action=edit&redlink=1 +++ would be even more important, as it clearly documents the final and historical demise of the Dolgen manor. All people were publicly expelled from Commons by the chairman of the Plessen-family association +++ here +++. I therefore do not recognize any data protection violations. I would very politely ask you to also unlock this encyclopedic and contemporary historical document. Best regards --Gordito1869 (talk) 07:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC) - PS : "...das Verständnis familiärer und historischer Zusammenhänge" ist das enzyklopädische Ziel; deshalb ist die Freischaltung i.S. des Vorsitzenden des Familienverbandes der Plessen enzyklopädisch dringend geboten & absolut erwünscht, so denke ich. ... vgl. auch +++ hier +++; die neuesten Forschungsstände zum abgewickelten Rittergut Dolgen wurden leider bisher noch nicht enzyklopädisch erfasst resp. dokumentiert. MfG --Gordito1869 (talk) 09:03, 29 January 2024 (UTC)-
@(Christian von Plessen have now been repeatedly asked publicly to support the activation by publicly agreeing; since it is a verified user Template:User account verified I suggest that the support team made a corresponding request to the verified User / Benutzer Christian von Plessen via e-mail. The matter is very important for all Plessen and CvP will certainly agree, I think. Best regards --Gordito1869 (talk) 08:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

...zur vollständigen familiengeschichtlichen-, historischen- und auch enzyklopädischen Dokumentation der Abwicklung des historischen Rittergutes Dolgen wäre sicherlich insgesamt die Freischaltung folgender - gelöschter - Files wünschenswert und im enzyklopädischen Interesse der Familie von Plessen :

  • File:Rückabwicklung des Plessengutes Dolgen am See.pdf
  • File:Historische PLESSEN-Dokumente Rittergut Dolgen Einlassungen eines unberechtigten Dritten Vorsitzender des Familienverbandes der Plessen.pdf
  • File:Historische PLESSEN-Dokumente Rittergut Dolgen gemeinschaftlicher EALG-Antrag an LARoV Hartwig von Plessen, Rosemarie Pfeiffer, 10-1994.pdf
  • File:Historische PLESSEN-Dokumente Rittergut Dolgen ausgefertigte Heimatverzichtserklärungen zu Dolgen im Entwurf, die abgelehnt wurden.pdf
  • File:Historische PLESSEN-Dokumente Rittergut Dolgen Notarvertrag zum Erbe des Rittergutsbesitzers zu Dolgen Leopold Freiherr von Plessen.pdf
  • File:Historische PLESSEN-Dokumente Rittergut Dolgen LARV Schwerin Entscheidung nach AusglLG.pdf
  • File:Historische PLESSEN-Dokumente Rittergut Dolgen Flächenerwerbsabsicht auf dem vormaligen Rittergut Dolgen nach ALG.pdf
  • File:Historische PLESSEN-Dokumente Rittergut Dolgen Beschluss Deutscher Bundestag zu vollmachtloser BVVG-Vetternwirtschaft zu Damshagen, mit Auswirkung auf Dolgen.pdf
  • File:Historische PLESSEN-Dokumente - Rittergut Dolgen - BVVG Landerwerbszusage nach ALG bzgl Dolgen.pdf
  • File:Historische PLESSEN-Dokumente - Widerruf der BVVG bzgl einer zuvor bereits mehrfach durch LARoV und BVVG schriftlich erteilten ALG-Landerwerbszusage auf dem Rittergut Dolgen am See.pdf
  • File:Historische PLESSEN-Dokumente - Aufkauf der (E)ALG-Rechtsansprüche an Plessengütern in der vormaligen SBZ.pdf
  • File:Historische PLESSEN-Dokumente - Rittergut Dolgen - EGMR-Beschwerde 2005-1.pdf
  • File:Historische PLESSEN-Dokumente - Rittergut Dolgen - EGMR-Beschwerde 2005-2.pdf

Die Freischaltung der vorstehenden Files würde die komplette jüngere Vergangenheit der sog. "Nach-Wende-Zeit" vollständig visuell ab dieser Zeit abbilden; genau das liegt exakt im erklärten wissenschaftlichen Forschungs-Interesse des Vorsitzenden des Familienverbandes der Plessen @(Christian von Plessen, so denke ich. Beste Grüße --Gordito1869 (talk) 14:47, 30 January 2024 (UTC)--Gordito1869 (talk) 14:47, 30 January 2024 (UTC) --- ps : es liegt leider die absolute Vermutung nahe, wir könnten es hier mit einem Hochstapler der PLESSEN zu tun haben, der sich als vorgeblicher Rechtsanwalt in eigener Sache mutmaßlich widerrechtlich ausgegeben haben könnte, so denke ich (nach meiner sehr validen Kenntnis familiärer Zusammenhänge ist CvP kein (!) Rechtsanwalt ... und auch niemals Rechtsanwalt gewesen, so denke ich. - MfG --Gordito1869 (talk) 19:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC) ... ps II. - ich denke, die aktive Untätigkeit des Vorsitzenden der Plessen - @(Christian von Plessen - resp. Rechtsanwalt (?) Dr. jur. Christian von Plessen - könnte als passive Zustimmung zur Freischaltung der historischen- & familiengeschichtlich besonders wertvollen Dokumente ausgelegt werden. Vielleicht kann mit der Freischaltung des ersten Dokuments begonnen werden, das den Vorsitzenden des Familienverbandes der Plessen sehr persönlich angeht ? - MfG --Gordito1869 (talk) 09:19, 31 January 2024 (UTC) ... ich denke, CvP liest - wie eigentlich immer - vollständig hier mit; wenn nunmehr auch noch eine e-mail Anfrage des support teams an @(Christian von Plessen ohne Reaktion verläuft, sollte m.E. freigeschaltet werden. Die unvollständige & absolut beschönigende resp. wahrheitswidrige Plessen-Saga des Edelherren Christian von Plessen muss unverzüglich geschichtsfest fortgeschrieben werden, so denke ich. - Ich habe ein aller-letztes Mal persönlich versucht, mit familiären & sehr persönlichen Worten, diesen offenbar völlig "abgetauchten" User "aus der Reserve" zu locken. - Alle entscheidenden familiären Zusammenhänge waren dem Vorsitzenden der Plessen bekanntlich leider bisher nicht bekannt, das sollte sich durch Freischaltung der hist. und enzyklopädisch wertvollen Familiendokumente aller Plessen sicherlich ändern können, so denke ich. --- Wie vermutlich einige (deutschsprachige) User bereits festgestellt haben werden, haben wir es mit dem widerwärtigsten und ehrlosesten VERRAT in der 1000-jährigen Geschichte der Plessen zu tun; Wiki-Commons ist m.E. der würdigste Ort, Geschichte enzyklopädisch und familienhistorisch korrekt zu schreiben resp. zu dokumentieren. - Wikipedia und Wiki-Commons sind "Orte", die sich der Wahrheit verschrieben haben und deren User/Benutzer nicht käuflich sind (ich selbst war und bin als Mensch und Bundebeamter niemals im Leben käuflich) : nur deshalb war ich lange Jahre Wikipedia Autor (158-Artikel & Listen) ... und bin seit ewigen Zeiten Wiki-Commons-User. Geschichte muss immer & überall auf UNSERER Welt auf nackter & ungeschönter Wahrheit beruhen, so denke ich ! - MfG Michael Pfeiffer alias --Gordito1869 (talk) 19:35, 31 January 2024 (UTC)--Gordito1869 (talk) 19:35, 31 January 2024 (UTC) ... ich denke, wenn @(Christian von Plessen keinerlei "Lebenszeichen" mehr seit nunmehr 3-Jahren - als vormals sehr aktiver Commons-User & hochtalentierter Wikipedia-Schriftsteller - von sich gibt, ist das sicherlich kein gutes Zeichen. (Bei Wikipedia gibt es für diesen Fall eigens die "Liste der vermissten Wikipedianer". Eine Anfrage unter dessen hinterlegter e-mail Adresse wäre vor Aufnahme in die Vermisstenliste - rein aus Fürsorgegründen - dringend geboten, so denke ich. Auch die durch Herrn Rechtsanwalt Dr. jur. Christian von PLESSEN vor 3-Jahren bereits angekündigte enzyklopädische Fortschreibung der "Plessen-Sage" darf m.E. nicht auf unbestimmte Zeit ausgesetzt werden, so denke ich. --Gordito1869 (talk) 13:05, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Guten Abend + kurz nachgefragt : Spricht etwas dagegen, die enyklopädisch- und insbes. familiengeschichtlich- resp. historisch relevanten Dokumente in anonymisierter Form (wie z.B. hier : geschwärzt) ggf. neu hochzuladen ? - H.E. steht nicht mehr zu erwarten, dass der mannigfach "angepingte" User einer Publizierung zustimmen wird; ich denke, die Gründe dafür sollten hinlänglich bekannt sein. Das Anonymisieren von Akten ist allgemein üblich - ohne die zu dokumentierenden Fakten auszublenden. MfG --Gordito1869 (talk) 20:52, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Guten Morgen, gibt es administrativ irgend eine Vorstellung, wie meine "undeletion requests" zum Abschluss gebracht werden könn(t)en ? - Ich möchte nochmals höflich darauf hinweisen, dass die familiengeschichtlichen Dokumente der "Plessen-Family" zum Verständnis der komplexen historischen Situation nach 1990 (Wiedervereinigung) von zentraler Bedeutung sind und - auch enzyklopädisch relevante - Zusammenhänge wahrheitsgemäß geschichtsfest dokumentieren (...ggf. mögen einzelne Namen und Adressen - aus Datenschutzgründen - geschwärzt werden; das ist/wäre ein absolut übliches Verfahren). - Herr (Rechtsanwalt (?)) Dr. jur. @(Christian von Plessen wird sich aus nachvollziehbaren Gründen sicherlich nicht mehr zum endgültig abgewickelten Rittergut Dolgen einlassen, so denke ich. - Die historischen Dokumente gehören allesamt +++ hier hin +++. --- MfG Michael Pfeiffer alias --Gordito1869 (talk) 07:43, 12 February 2024 (UTC)--Gordito1869 (talk) 07:43, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@Minorax: , @Odder: , @Rama: We need an oversighter here, and Raymond was already involved and says others should take it on. Any other admins won't be able to do anything here. --Rosenzweig τ 09:54, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Just to confirm that it is agreed that the privacy concern with regards to the files has been addressed and this is a successful undeletion request? --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 10:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
I can't even see the files, nor do I have access to oversighter communication channels, so I cannot confirm anything. Presumably the privacy concern has not been addressed, but that's what an oversighter would need to look into and possibly tell the uploader which parts of the documents would need to be covered/blocked/removed for a re-upload which was already suggested by the uploader (and then probably close this undeletion request as unsuccessful). Any other admins won't be able to move this forward. --Rosenzweig τ 10:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
@Raymond: Mind commenting on this? Google translate doesn't seem to be helping me to understand the situation. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 02:54, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
They are documents of Plessen-family history and historical value. Professor Ernst Münch (University of Rostock)-, the renowned writer Elisabeth Plessen and other experts were involved in the important Plessen documents and the matter at all; activation is also expected for scientific reasons. If there are data protection concerns, certain information may need to be blacked out, which is common practice. - If it causes "a headache", please at least unblock this one document regarding Dolgen-Manor : https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:R%C3%BCckabwicklung_des_Plessengutes_Dolgen_am_See.pdf&action=edit&redlink=1 --- All people involved were named personally by @Dr. jur. Christian von Plessen, the chairman of the Plessen-Family himself; Data protection violations are therefore not apparent. - Best regards : --Gordito1869 (talk) 10:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
@Minorax Email sent. Raymond (talk) 11:08, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

@Dr. jur. Christian von Plessen wird sich - mehr als offensichtlich & aus allseits bekannten Gründen - nicht zu den historisch & familiengeschichtlich (enzyklopädisch) wertvollen (hier leider gelöschten) Familiendokumenten bzgl. Rittergut Dolgen einlassen, so denke ich. - PS : Bei Ratten im Langzeitversuch verursachte GVO in der Nahrungskette diverse Krebserkrankungen; ich hoffe dringend, meinem "lieben" Verwandten a.d.H. 19205 Schönfeld blieb- resp. bleibt das Schicksal der armen & kranken Genraps-Ratten erspart ... und der Edelherr äußert sich nun ggf. aus gesundheitlichen Gründen nicht mehr, obwohl er seine "Plessen-Saga" noch allumfassend & in seinem Sinne fortschreiben & bebildern wollte (?) - MfG --Gordito1869 (talk) 09:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Rosenzweig: Please check through. Thanks. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 12:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
You are a true man of honor and hero of our democracy : Thank you on behalf of my dead Plessen mother and my dead grandfather Leopold from the Dolgen Manor house !!! - Best regards, Michael J. Pfeiffer alias --Gordito1869 (talk) 20:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
@Minorax: I've looked at some, but will need a bit more time to read them all and form an opinion about their copyright status, if they're in scope, and about possible privacy concerns. --Rosenzweig τ 08:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
(Please don't forget : all real names were published by the @Dr. jur. Christian von Plessen (@Christian von Plessen: ) personally. The documents regarding Dolgen manor are of central importance for a truthful continuation of the encyclopedic and family history-relevant "Plessen saga". - Best regards, Michael Pfeiffer alias --Gordito1869 (talk) 10:32, 1 March 2024 (UTC) )
@Minorax: I've looked at them all now. As far as copyright is concerned, this is a bunch of letters by lawyers and official agencies as well as contracts, all in a rather factual language and not very original, so I think one could say the texts are below COM:TOO Germany. As far as privacy is concerned, we have a bunch of names here as well as birth dates and street addresses, but the people involved have either already died several years ago or don't seem to be terribly bothered by these letters being public. It's not that the letters contain any intimate secrets anyway, it's all about buying back family property that had been expropriated in the Communist eastern part of Germany after the Second World War.
Which brings us to the 3rd point, project scope. These letters etc. are all documenting a dispute about property and money between various members of this family. It seems the whole thing was pursued in a rather litigious manner, we have a decision by the petition committee of the German federal parliament (the Bundestag) here, and apparently one side tried to bring the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg into this, unsuccesfully as far as I can see.
Gordito1869 argues that all these letters are somehow about the de:Herrenhaus Dolgen manor and therefore share its notability, but I don't quite see it that way. The letters are barely about the house at all, but about agricultural lands that were once attached to it (and were then expropriated), about who will be able to buy them back or get a compensation for them in money etc. That all seems hardly enclycopaedic to me, and probably we should delete the whole bunch of files again (or technically, decline the undeletion request) as being out of scope.
That's how I see it anyway, but we'd need more opinions by others (and we already know that Gordito1869 wants them permanently undeleted, so no need to write that again). You'd need to be able to read German though to understand the content. @Achim55: From what I've seen, you seem to have edited some of the files. Dou you have an opinion regarding the problems above, leave the files undeleted permanently or delete them again, copyright, privacy concerns, project scope? Or anyone else able to read German and understand the files? Regards --Rosenzweig τ 21:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
@Achim55: Hallo Achim, zugegeben, die Themen "Flucht & Vertreibung", "Lügen vs. Wahrheit" sind nicht einfach und nicht zwingend enzyklopädisch - aber sie gehören imho zur zeitgeschichtlichen & wahrheitsgemäßen Reflexion in seriösen Nachschlagwerken dazu (...und Wikipedia zähle ich ganz sicherlich dazu, sonst wäre nicht kürzlich mein 10.000 Edit unter Commons gewürdigt worden ... und auch meine unzähligen Bilder (seit ca. 15-Jahren) hatten im Masse einigen enzyklopädischen "Wert"). - Die Plessen sind ganz ohne Frage enzyklopädisch relevant - und mein leiblicher und ehelicher Ur-Ur-Urgroßvater Leopold von Plessen und dessen Rittergut Dolgen besaßen bis 1990 Ansehen, Würde und EHRE. - Meine hochgeladenen Dokumente, die hier einmal mehr diskutiert werden, dokumentieren unzweifelhaft, wie das Rittergut Dolgen des LvP durch unberechtigte Dritte endgültig irreversibel zerschlagen und abgewickelt wurde; ich halte das für zeit- und familiengeschichtlich sehr relevant und es entspricht unbedingt auch dem erklärten Ziel von User:Christian von Plessen, der das "Verständnis familiärer und historischer Zusammenhänge" offen legen will : genau das will ich ja auch - aber wahrheitsgemäß und faktenbasiert. - Das Plessengut Damshagen, das dem Onkel Hans-Balduin von Plessen des hiesigen Users:Christian von Plessen rechtmäßig gehörte, findet hier breite wissenschaftliche Beachtung und mannigfache Würdigung in einem Nachschlagwerk ... und auch Dolgen darf imho nicht familiengeschichtlich-, wissenschaftlich-, enzyklopädisch völlig "unter den Teppich gekehrt werden", denke ich. - Ich bitte deshalb sehr höflich darum, die wenigen historischen Dokumente und Urkunden, die Dolgen und seine traurige Geschichte nach 1990 betreffen, zu erhalten. (Wie ich bereits mehrfach vorgeschlagen hatte, mögen ja datenschutzrechtlich bedenkliche Stellen in den Dokumenten gerne geschwärzt werden; das entspricht z.B. auch absolut gängiger rechtlich korrekter Praxis bei der Verwendung/Auswertung von Strafakten, wie ich aus meiner langjährigen Dienstzeit als Bundesbeamter beim (BA)MAD konkret weiß). Da mit dem Nationalsozialisten Reimar von Plessen (2. Vorsitzender der antidemokratischen Herrengesellschaft Mecklenburg) und dem absolut widerwärtigen (!) Nationalsozialisten & Gauwirtschaftsberater der NSDAP, Hennecke von Plessen bereits zwei mehr als fragwürdige und unseriöse Nazi-Schergen den Familienvorsitz der Plessen führten, gilt es heute, das "Verständnis familiärer und historischer Zusammenhänge" im Sinne des aktuellen Vorsitzenden der Plessen - User:Christian von Plessen - besonders emotionsfrei und sachlich - aber insbes. (wissenschaftlich korrekt) geschichtsfest zu dokumentieren. (q.e.d.) - MfG Michael Pfeiffer alias --Gordito1869 (talk) 21:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC) - ps : "By the way" : Der durch User:Christian von Plessen unter Klarnamen & unter Wiki-Commons genannte- und mannigfach vs. Dolgen involvierte Rechtsanwalt Dr. von Hugo war Geschäftsführer der Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Agrarfragen (AfA) und Beschwerdeführer von SBZ-Alteigentümern vor dem EGMR : bitte schauen Sie sich das "Rechts(staats)verständnis" der AfA an (nur völlig "durgeknallte" Reichsbürger würden solche Hass- und Hetzschriften vs. unseren Rechtsstaat und unsere unabhängige Justiz öffentlich publizieren, so denke ich); nur durch eine absolut unheilige Allianz von Vettern-BVVG und der AfA wurden solche (rechtsstaatlichen ?) Machenschaften und faktiischen Insich-Geschäfte überhaupt erst ermöglicht ... und NEIN : User:Christian von Plessen war und ist nachweislich KEIN (!) Rechtsanwalt, der SEINE VETTERN-BVVG in eigener Sache (Damshagen) mannigfach vertreten hatte. - Man darf & kann nur hoffen, dass sich unser Staatsschutz den absolut fragwürdigen Machenschaften von AfA & Vettern-BVVG & und ihren Günstlingen - resp. vertretenden Nicht-Rechtsanwälten im "Outfit" von vermeintlichen "Edelherren" - endgültig rechtsstaatlich annimmt ! --- Achim, wenn sie die +++ realen heutigen Zustände +++ in ihrer und UNSERER geliebten Heimat in der vormaligen SBZ / DDR emotionsfrei und sachlich zur Kenntnis nehmen - dann löschen sie bitte relevante Beweisakten und historisch / enzyklopädisch wertvolle Dokumente (insbes. zum Rittergut Dolgen) nicht; diese "Geschichte resp. Plessen-Saga" von AfA & Vettern-BVVG vs. redliche-, gutgläubige und ehrbare (!) Menschen in Ost und West ist leider immer noch nicht zu Ende "erzählt" worden. - MfG Michael Pfeiffer, investigativer User und vormaliger Nachrichtendienstler alias --Gordito1869 (talk) 08:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC) --- ps II : Es sollte mir ferner gestattet sein, eine öffentliche Gegendarstellung (an Ort und Stelle) zu dieser (öffentlichen-, verleumderischen und nachweislich unwahren) Tatsachenbehauptung seitens meines Verwandten User:Christian von Plessen faktenbasiert-, beweiskräftig und wahrheitsgemäß zu publizieren : Zitat User:Christian von Plessen "Sie haben mich wider besseres Wissen wiederholt öffentlich als Schurken hingestellt. Das war keine Fehde zwischen uns, sondern es war üble Nachrede Ihrerseits, die erst durch Rechtsanwalt Kossyk gerichtlich beigelegt wurde." (Zitat-Ende). - NEIN, ich habe User:Christian von Plessen NICHT (!) wider besseres Wissen als Schurken öffentlich hingestellt; meine hochgeladenen Dokumente und Urkunden beweisen familiengeschichtlich-, historisch-, wissenschaftlich und auch strafrechtlich das exakte Gegenteil : (Niemand (...und schon garnicht als treuer Staatsdiener a.D.) muss sich unter Wiki-Commons - öffentlich & ohne Gegendarstellung - durch einen User wahrheitswidrig verleumden lassen, so denke ich.) q.e.d. (Bitte lösche die Dokumente aus zahlreichen Gründen nicht, Achim; wer sich an den nackten Fakten stört wird sich ggf. melden.) --- MfG M. Pfeiffer alias --Gordito1869 (talk) 09:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Diese Tirade lässt mich umso mehr zu der Ansicht tendieren, dass diese ganzen Briefe usw. nichts für Wikimedia Commons sind. Dass bestimmte Personen oder Gebäude usw. für Wikipedia & Co. relevant sind, heißt nicht, dass wir allen möglichen Schriftverkehr dazu haben und aufbewahren wollen. Hier geht es um irgendwelche Privatstreitigkeiten, und wir sind nicht die Plattform, auf der die beteiligten Parteien oder auch nur eine davon ihre Sichtweisen dazu ausbreiten können. --Rosenzweig τ 09:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Wenn ich sie oben richtig verstanden habe, wurde @Achim55: von Ihnen um "dritte Meinung" (but we'd need more opinions by others) gebeten (ihre rein pers. Meinung hatten sie doch bereits artikuliert). - Eine sog. "Tirade" ist auch nicht Gegenstand dieser Diskussion (sondern diente ausschließlich Achim zur reinen Klarstellung der komplexen Situation; wer sollte sich an historisch-/familiengeschichtlich-/zeitgeschichtlich sehr relevanten Dokumenten & Urkunden stören können, die eine Enzyklopädie imho bereichern ?) --- Die Freischaltung der vormals gelöschten Dokumente wurde hier seit dem 27. Januar 2024 umfassend diskutiert; erst danach ist die Freischaltung erfolgt. Die nach demokratischer Willensbildung wieder hergestellten Dokumente sollen doch wohl jetzt - auf blanken Zuruf hin - nicht einmal mehr gelöscht werden ? - Wird hier ein "Ping-Pong-Spiel" auf dem Rücken von Usern & Betroffenen ausgetragen, oder was soll das hier werden ? - Der Abschiedsbrief des Leopold Frhr. von Plessen vom 29. April 1945 auf Dolgen wurde - nach umfassender Diskussion - auch nicht gelöscht; die nunmehr wieder freigeschalteten Dokumente betreffen das Rittergut Dolgen und die Ehre & Reputation dieses Mannes - und die Dokumente haben insgesamt einen erheblichen familiengeschichtlichen & wissenschaftlichen Erkenntniswert und dienen damit Wikipedia. - MfG M. Pfeiffer --Gordito1869 (talk) 10:45, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Demokratische Willensbildung? Jetzt ist aber gut, das ist keine Abstimmung hier. Die Dateien wurden vorläufig wiederhergestellt, damit man sie überhaupt erst einmal einsehen (ging vorher nicht, weil "oversighted") und beurteilen kann. Mehr nicht. --Rosenzweig τ 11:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
ok, wenn perverse Pornobilder und abnormale Sex-Videos (sog. "Sexual intercourse in...") einen ganz erheblichen erzieherischen und insbes. enzyklopädischen "Wert" für minderjährige Kinder haben (sollen) - warum dann aber nicht auch zeitgeschichtlich- und enzyklopädisch absolut seriöse und valide Dokumente ? - Wenn es tatsächlich keine mehrheitliche (demokratische) Willensbildung bei Wiki-Commons gibt, dann bin- resp. wäre ich hier - als Demokrat und passionierter Rechtsstaatler - tatsächlich fehl am Platze. Tschüss --Gordito1869 (talk) 11:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: Since there were no further comments here, I've turned this into a regular deletion request: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Documents regarding Dolgen manor. --Rosenzweig τ 17:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Files in Category:Order of Karl Marx

  1. Template:PD-GermanGov — Dieses Werk gilt gemäß dem deutschen Urheberrecht als gemeinfrei, weil es Teil der Statute, Verordnung oder ein gesetzlicher Erlass (Amtliches Werk) ist, das durch eine deutsche Behörde bzw. durch ein deutsches Gericht veröffentlicht wurde.
  2. Gesetze, Verordnungen, amtliche Erlasse und Bekanntmachungen sowie Entscheidungen und amtlich verfaßte Leitsätze zu Entscheidungen genießen keinen urheberrechtlichen Schutz (§ 5 Abs.1 UrhG).
  3. Die Vorschriften des Urheberrechtsgesetzes sind auf die vor dem Wirksamwerden des Beitritts geschaffenen Werke anzuwenden (Einigungsvertrag).
  • @Infrogmation, @Rosenzweig. If the image was created by a state act, and images of awards and ribbon bars for them are prescribed in legislative acts, then such images are not protected by copyright. The year of death of the artist-author of the award design has absolutely nothing to do with copyright law. If the image of an award created by a legislative act of the Federal Republic of Germany is not protected by copyright, then, therefore, the image created by a legislative act of the GDR is not protected either. This is even written in Wikipedia. --Engelberthumperdink (talk) 17:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
So which official work of Germany do you think created this medal design? I mean, not just the decoration as such, but its specific design? --Rosenzweig τ 17:30, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
The order was established by the Council of Ministers of the GDR (p. 69). The statute of the order with a description of the images of the order and the ribbon bar for it was also established by the Council of Ministers of the GDR (p. 610). Do you not consider the Council of Ministers of the GDR to be an official institution? --Engelberthumperdink (talk) 17:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
The decoration is described in words there. This does not make the medal itself an official work in the legal sense, because the design is not part of this decree. --Rosenzweig τ 17:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Laut Bundesgerichtshof müssen derartige Bekanntmachung „regelnden Inhalt“ aufweisen — Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Germany/de. «Der Bundesadler ist mangels Schöpfungshöhe gemeinfrei, Blücherorden als amtliches Werk, genauso wie Bundesverdienstkreuz und andere staatlich herausgegebene Medaillen oder Orden» (1). In a number of countries it is stipulated that images of awards are not protected by copyright, but in general this is a completely normal state of affairs - that independently taken photographs of state awards or images of ribbon bars made based on original images are not protected by copyright. Give me at least one law of at least one country in which images of state awards are protected by copyright. Unless it is expressly stated in the law, this does not mean that you can claim copyright protection for images of government awards. Can you see for yourself how many inclusions there are here and there? --Engelberthumperdink (talk) 18:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
This is not about the law of other countries and what is “normal” there, it's only about German law. Unless there are clearly defined exceptions, the regular rules of German copyright law apply: Works are created by authors and protected for 70 years post mortem auctoris. There is an exception for official works, but it is quite restrictive compared to some other countries. German copyright statute law (the Urheberrechtsgesetz) is often less clear than we wish it would be, and that is when (in some cases at least) the courts step in. In the past, we thought that German stamps were in the public domain as official works (until a court told us they're not), and we've also come to the conclusion that German coins are not official works (COM:CUR Germany), and in that context a court even ruled that the official works exception only applies to text, not images. It's a rather low court, one of several, so that is not universal, but it does show a tendency.
I'm curious about these rather random German quotes you're inserting. Do you understand their content (you're not listing German among the languages in your userbox)? For example, the one about "regelnden Inhalt" says that not just any Bekanntmachung is an official work in the legal sense, but that this category is restricted to those Bekanntmachungen with regulatory content only. How does that have anything to do with the question at hand? The quote about the Bundesverdienstkreuz etc. is not a law, court decision or similar, but the opinion of a contributor to the Urheberrechtsfragen, de.wp's version of COM:VPC. I don't agree with all of it. --Rosenzweig τ 19:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 Oppose No further reply for more than two weeks, no convincing argument why the files would be in the public domain. --Rosenzweig τ 23:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
@Rosenzweig. Я не обязан следить за всеми обсуждениями, в которых участвую. Хотите поговорить по-русски, раз притыкаете за мой немецкий? --Engelberthumperdink (talk) 23:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: no consensus to undelete. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

@Abzeronow. Разговор из двух человек по определению не может закончиться консенсусом, если уж на то пошло. --Engelberthumperdink (talk) 23:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

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

File:MyHouse.wad title screen.png

File was freely licensed and in scope.

* Copyright / Permissions *

Authors MAY NOT use the maps in this wad as a base for additional maps.

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose, as is a file in use for some operational reason such as within a template or the like.

WhoAteMyButter (talk) 20:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: Seeing the article, this looks to be notable enough for Commons. --Yann (talk) 08:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Stop the A68 Dalkeith Bypass.jpg

VRT ticket:2024031210008044 suggests that these three files come from Flickr and the license information there is the correct one, and the uploader has made some errors while uploading. As such:

✓ Done: 2 files undeleted, as per above. --Yann (talk) 08:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Images of Bolzano/Bozen Victory Monument

Hi, I'm requesting the undeletion of many images of the en:Bolzano Victory Monument: File:Leuchtring siegesdenkmal bozen.JPG, deleted in 2014 in this DR; File:Bozen Siegesdenkmal Inschrift.jpg, File:Siegesdenkmal Bozen Bolzano.jpg, File:Siegesdenkmal Bozen east.JPG, File:Siegesdenkmal Bozen south.jpg, File:Siegesdenkmal Bozen west.jpg, File:SiegesdenkmalBZ.jpg, File:SiegesdenkmalInschrift.2008-11-08.png, all deleted in 2013 in this DR; Image:Siegesdenkmal bozen.JPG, deleted in 2007 in this DR; Image:Bozner Siegesdenkmal.jpg, deleted in 2007 in this DR. The monument was commissioned in 1926 by the Chief of Government (Mussolini) and by the Ministry of Education to en:Marcello Piacentini, and it was inaugurated in 1928 (for the details see here pages 125 and 133). Therefore it should fall under Template:PD-ItalyGov at least since 1949 (way before the URAA, so no issue with the US copyright). The warning put in the category in 2023 by User:G.dallorto should be removed accordingly.--Friniate (talk) 10:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

 Support as in the other undeletions of Italian works commissioned by the Italian state or one of its subdivisions. --Rosenzweig τ 13:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: per request and previous requests of Italian government commissioned works. --Abzeronow (talk) 01:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

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

File:X Japan logo.svg

Previously deleted per belief that "The X may have some artistic appreciation putting it above COM:TOO Japan.", now with User:Nacaru's rationale for keeping File:Xenoblade 3 logo.webp, I am requesting undeletion of this listed logo.

Thank you. --Grandmaster Huon (talk) 16:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: This looks quite simple. No opposition. --Yann (talk) 08:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Mick-a-Matic front.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The Mickey design here seems like early Mickey with the ears, and the white skin tone. The eye color here is blue. This is possibly derivative of now public domain Mickey Mouse designs. (Edit: a different image of the camera https://www.moma.org/audio/playlist/45/714) Abzeronow (talk) 17:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure. If the camera were from 1928 or so, it would be clear, but it is from 1971. And with just the head it is kind of hard to determine if it is a derivative of the earliest MM incarnation or of a later one. It doesn't look like either really. --Rosenzweig τ 14:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: The picture is free, Mickey is in the public domain. If anyone has an issue with this file, please create a new DR. --Yann (talk) 08:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Bishop of New Guinea.jpg

Reason: Copyright holder has released the photo into the public domain: https://flickr.com/photos/uon/9662505368/ --Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose There are two problems here. First, there is no reason to believe that the Flickr user has any right to make the image PD. That right belongs (or belonged) to the heirs of the actual painter. We don't know whether this is still under copyright or not.

Second, we do not know the name of the subject. I looked through the few images of bishops linked at Anglican_Church_of_Papua_New_Guinea and could not find a match. Although the source calls him "Bishop of New Guinea", he is dressed as a priest (bishops wear purple shirts). Without a name, I don't see any educational use for the image. Even if the copyright issue could be answered I can't see that a nameless and ambiguous image of a priest is in scope. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I was also hesitant on this since it is an undated painting, but the Flickr user is part of a GLAM, and it's possible that the University of Newcastle Library is the copyright holder. I also agree with you on scope. Abzeronow (talk) 16:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
It is Bishop Philip Strong (see comparison photos here, here) and will be used on the Philip Strong page. It's not a painting, it's a colorised photographic slide. According to the University of Newcastle Library, the Library acquired the photo and has the authority to grant usage (see here); the Flickr page license makes clear it has been released into the public domain. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
On flickr, it's not released into the PD, it's merely tagged with a PD mark, i.e. "free of known restrictions under copyright law". Similarly, on the newcastle.edu.au website, the Library does not claim to hold a copyright or authority, it merely states its opinion that "the photos in this collection are in the public domain" [1], which may well be correct in Australia. The various items were collected by Williamson. Apparently, the creators of the items are unknown to the Library and the Library concludes that the items are old enough that their copyrights have expired in Australia by the effect of law. The item "Bishop of New Guinea" looks like it could be from circa the 1940s, based on the looks of the subject. (The Library says that the items are from "until the mid-1930s". According to the Wikipedia article, Strong was Bishop of New Guinea from 1936 to 1962.) Assuming a first publication in Australia and assuming that the identity of the creator is indeed lost and impossible to know, that would probably make it eligible for the Commons tag PD-Australia. Not sure what its U.S. status can be. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

As I noted above, he is dressed as a priest, not a bishop. If this is Strong -- it's not obvious to me that this is Strong -- then he was made a Bishop in 1936, so the image must have been taken before that. However, we have no knowledge of when it was first published. Before 2005, the Australian rule for anonymous works was 50 years after publication, so if it was published before 1946 if missed the URAA date and is PD in the USA. It is PD in Australia if published before 1974. However, without any evidence of publication before 1946, I don't see how we can keep it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:42, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

We usually assume that old pictures were published shortly after they were taken. This seems to be from around 1930, so it is OK with {{PD-Australia}} and {{PD-1996}}. Yann (talk) 17:16, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Australian photographs were 50 years from creation, not publication, before 2005. The colorization may have a different status, but it seems to be before whatever scratches or dust marks that are in this scan, so it would seem they were done at the time. This seems virtually certain to have been published at the time; copies had to get their way into the archive somehow, and it seems to be a publicity portrait. It's certainly in scope even if not identified now; identification can easily come later. Papua New Guinea law would be 50 years from making available to the public, I think. The dates of the collection are up to the mid 1930s so it would have had to be in the Australian collection since then, presumably published. I can't see any significant doubts that the copyright still existed in either country in 1996.  Support Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:16, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
I agree that, without more evidence, it's not obvious if it is a photo of Strong. It might be a photo of any other priest, for example a circa 1900 photo of Gerald Sharp. Commons currently has at least 371 files from the same collection (Category:Archdeacon A.N. Williamson Collection) and their publication histories are probably undocumented also. But given that they're supposed to be from before 1940, they would be PD at least in Australia. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Carl L. --Yann (talk) 13:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Pello Otxandiano.jpg

The image was deleted per discussion in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pello Otxandiano.jpg. Anyway, after consulting with the website about the differences between the cc-by-sa license in the front and the legal notice, the legal notice itself has changed to reflect that all the images are under cc-by-sa license, while the texts are (strangely enough) under cc-by-nc-sa license. The image should be restored accordingly. Pinging @Impru20: , and @Holly Cheng: , who discussed about this issue. -Theklan (talk) 16:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: It seems the license is OK now: content can be used, copied, distributed, shown, publicly displayed, modified, developed, combined with other materials, used for commercial purposes. --Yann (talk) 10:41, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Aurich

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Subbass1 (talk • contribs) 11:56, 28 March 2024‎ (UTC)

 Oppose The uploader is not the author and there is no evidence of permission from the author. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Not correct, permission was sent and there also was a unpleasant discussion. Deleting was an error as there was and is no reason to do so. pls talk tp the deleter. --Subbass1 (talk) 20:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
From what I can see in the deleted files, they were marked as "permission received" on December 8, 2023 and then deleted one month later on January 8, 2024 as "No ticket permission since 8 December 2023", suggesting that the permission was not accepted. Something might have been missing, or maybe there were unanswered questions still not answered after that month. I can only speculate, as I'm not a VRT member. Without an accepted VRT permission,  Oppose the undeletion. --Rosenzweig τ 21:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes, the December 8 action by Krdbot makes it is clear that something was received at VRT, but Krd, who runs Krdbot and who is a VRT member, deleted the file for no permission on January 8, so it is clear that whatever was received was not a satisfactory free license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
No, the permission was sent fully complete and ok. The error lies on the OTRS member side. --Subbass1 (talk) 01:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
@Subbass1: You wrote that "there also was a unpleasant discussion." What does that refer to? If, as you are alleging, there was an error on the VRT side, COM:UNDEL is the wrong place for this discussion. You should take it to Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard. --Rosenzweig τ 13:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
I was there already and was pointed here. And could you please refrain from closing this topic over and over again, as it is in no way solved. --Subbass1 (talk) 14:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Link: Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard#ticket:2023120810006959. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
@Subbass1: This topic was not closed. You removed the tag related to the next topic. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment: Tending to support temporary undeletion in order to have a normal deletion request allowing an ordinary discussion of the FoP issue. From what I understand (n.b.: this is only from the little information publicly available and I could be missing something), the VRT ticket was about the photographs, it was the permission from the photographer. There does not seem to be a problem with the ticket, as shown by the photographs with the same ticket that are not deleted. Apparently, the deletion of the deleted files was unrelated to the ticket and it was about a different issue, a possible FoP thing about a part of the architecture of the building shown. Basically, Krd thinks that something is copyrighted and presents a FoP problem, and Subbass1 thinks that there is no FoP problem. They have not really explained their respective conclusions beyond stating them. IMO, that is the type of issue that is normally discussed and finds its solution in an ordinary deletion request. The protagonists can explain their respective views there. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
@Subbass1: Why didn't you write right away that you already inquired at the VRT notice board instead of just vaguely referring to an "unpleasant discussion"? If you had done that, the problem would have been apparent right away and all of us would have been spared the waste of time above. Your behavior is not helpful. And as Asclepias has already pointed out, this topic was not closed by anybody (if it had, the complete text would be on a blue background).
That being said, I have temporarily restored the files to aid this discussion. Per the article de:Lambertikirche (Aurich), this church is from 1835 and was altered in 1885, 1899, and 1960. The 1960 alterations seem to have been mainly restricted to removing one of the galleries, closing up two windows with bricks, moving the pulpit elsewhere and bringing back the original white paintwork. If that was all that was changed in 1960, and everything else goes back to the 19th century, there is most likely not a copyright problem with the interior architecture of this church. --Rosenzweig τ 19:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: See Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Pipe organ of Lambertikirche Aurich now. --Rosenzweig τ 17:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Zoso.svg File:Zoso-square-layout.svgFile:Zoso Jimmy Page Saturn sigil.svg

These files were removed because of the "ZoSo" symbol, which was considered a protected logo, but wrongly because it is an old astrological symbol, seen for example in this book from 1847 [2].Swiãtopôłk (talk) 17:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

 Support based on that. I could not find any discussion where we had previously deemed the "Zoso" symbol a problem, as stated at Commons:Deletion requests/Logos of Led Zeppelin's fourth album. We had kept them many years earlier at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Zoso.svg and Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Zoso.svg. Pinging @Moxy as the one who made that statement. This may also mean that File:LedZeppelin.png should be undeleted as well. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:30, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: per request and Carl. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Parth Siddhpura at an event in 2023.jpg

The deletion of the photo, attributed to the reason "Personal photo by non-contributors," is erroneous. I hereby submit an appeal for the reinstatement of said photo. --PARTH — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pathaniya (talk • contribs) 18:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC) (UTC)

 Oppose This was copied from fandom.com, and the copyright is owned by the photographer, not the subject. And what's the educational use of this picture? Yann (talk) 18:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: LTA nonsense. --Эlcobbola talk 18:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Pola Gonciarz.jpg

To zdjęcie jest aktualnym zdjęciem Poli Gonciarz. Zgodnie z prawdą wypełniłam wszystko, co musiałam. Łącznie z wykonawcą zdjęcia i skąd te zdjęcie pochodzi.

Te zdjęcie nie powinno zostać usunięte, ponieważ dodałam je aby Pola Gonciarz miała aktualne zdjęcie w Wikipedii. Tak wygląda aktorka teraz i powinno te zdjęcie być na jej stronie w Wikipedii.

--Poludki (talk) 22:59, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Google Translate: "This photo is a current photo of Pola Gonciarz. I truthfully completed everything I had to do. Including who took the photo and where the photo comes from.
This photo should not be deleted because I added it so that Pola Gonciarz had an up-to-date photo on Wikipedia. This is what the actress looks like now and this photo should be on her Wikipedia page."
@Poludki: Is there a source that can verify that this particular photo is freely licensed by the copyright owner? Thuresson (talk) 23:28, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
This is the source of the photo: https://www.instagram.com/p/CR1np-gMelY/?igsh=MThpMnlkejRnZTRjZQ==
This is the official account of Pola Gonciarz on Instagram. Poludki (talk) 05:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
But where does the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA-4.0 license come from? And are you quite sure that this is a selfie? And what was Konrad Szymczak's role in this? Thuresson (talk) 09:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Konrad Szymczak is the stylist who was responsible for Pola's outfit Poludki (talk) 12:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
This is not a selfie. When I added the photo to Wikipedia, I wrote who took the photo. Justyna Kozera is a photographer and she took this photo. Poludki (talk) 12:31, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. And the license? Thuresson (talk) 13:39, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Is permission from the author of the photo sufficient? I don't understand what exactly you expect. Poludki (talk) 13:53, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
This is my first time adding a photo here and if I did something wrong or didn't do something, I want to know. Poludki (talk) 13:54, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
@Poludki: As for any content previously published elsewhere or not authored by you, we need a formal written permission from Justyna Kozera for a free license. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure. Yann (talk) 14:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: This image will be restored automatically, without further action by the uploader, if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT. The current backlog at VRT is 7 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:22, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

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

File:RuizPineda.jpg

From what I gather, this is an image of en:Leonardo Ruiz Pineda, who was killed in 1952. The picture has to be from before this date, and audiovisual works enter in Venezuela's public domain 60 years after its publication ({{PD-Venezuela}}). --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose Two problems. First, although the image must have been taken before he died, its first publication might have been after he died. In fact we have no evidence that it was published at all before its appearance here.
Second, if it was first published after 1945, it would have been PD only after the URAA date and therefore would be under copyright in the USA until 95 years after publication. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:20, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim, we would need publication information to determine its copyright status in the US. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Durga Puja, Singrauli M.P.jpg

I want the file to be undeleted as the creator of the artwork portrayed in the image is me so it doesn't violate the guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BhavyaTarun17 (talk • contribs) 14:28, 31 March 2024 (UTC) (UTC)

 Oppose Copied from [3]. No permission. Yann (talk) 14:27, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: per yann. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Photos by agence FRA Architectes / Loci Anima

Please undelete

We have permission per Ticket:2024032010011444.

Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 18:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Mussklprozz: FYI. --Yann (talk) 19:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Claude_Brosset_par_Jordan_Diow.jpg

Please undelete. We have permission per Ticket:2024032810011528. Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 19:27, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Mussklprozz: FYI. --Yann (talk) 19:30, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

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

File:19 Aurangabad - औरंगाबाद - اورنگ آباد.png and 47 other

Dear Administrator,

I am writing to request the undeletion of the Lok Sabha Maharashtra constituencies map images that were previously deleted from Wikimedia Commons.

File(s) in Question:

Reasons for the Request:

The map images were created by me, and I hold the full and exclusive copyright to these works. The maps accurately depict the electoral boundaries of Lok Sabha constituencies in Maharashtra, providing valuable information to users. These images were intended to contribute to the understanding of political geography and electoral processes in Maharashtra. The maps were created in compliance with Wikimedia Commons policies and guidelines, ensuring they meet the standards for free media files used by Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. I kindly request the restoration of these map images to Wikimedia Commons so that they can continue to serve as educational resources for users.

Thank you for considering my request. If you require any further information or clarification, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely, --Eaglespirit (talk) 19:39, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

 Support I checked only two of these, but I'd guess they are all the same. They have:

source={{Own}}
author=Eaglespirit
permission=
other versions=
=={{int:license-header}}==
{{t|self|cc-by-sa-4.0}}

They were tagged and deleted for "no permission", but obviously own work with a CC-BY-SA has permission even though the permission line is blank. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:18, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Notifying Timtrent (nominator) in case they have information about this. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Hey @Jameslwoodward do I need to add permission = {permission} ? or it is ok to be blank? Eaglespirit (talk) 02:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 Doing… Eaglespirit, you should make more clear in the sourcing that this is partly derived from a freely licensed map while still being an own work. Abzeronow (talk) 17:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: per request and Jim. Restored two in this series that weren't in the request. --Abzeronow (talk) 18:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Works for hire by Angiolo Mazzoni

Hello everyone. I'm requesting the undeletion of File:La Spezia - Palazzo delle Poste.jpg, File:Messina Centrale RFI Station Entrance.jpg, File:Palazzo delle Poste di Nuoro.jpg, File:Palazzo delle poste, pistoia.JPG, File:Palermo-Post-bjs.jpg, File:Poste Centrali Ferrara.JPG, File:Siena FS 1.JPG, File:Stazione Corridoio Trento Italia.jpg, File:07220008trentotrainstationstreetside.JPG, File:Stazione di reggio emilia.JPG, File:Gorica posta.JPG, File:Stazione Latina.jpg all deleted in this DR in 2013.

The photographed buildings are: it:Palazzo delle Poste (Nuoro) (1927), it:Palazzo delle Poste (Ferrara) (1930), Palazzo delle Poste di Gorizia (1930-1932), en:Latina railway station (1929-1932), it:Palazzo delle Poste (La Spezia) (1933), it:Palazzo delle Poste (Sabaudia) (1932-1934), it:Palazzo delle Poste (Palermo) (1934), en:Reggio Emilia railway station (1934-1935), en:Siena railway station (1935), it:Stazione di Trento (1932-1936), it:Palazzo delle Poste (Pistoia) (1937-1939), en:Messina Centrale railway station (rebuilt in 1939).

They are all general post offices and railway stations, designed by Angiolo Mazzoni in his role as engineer at the Ministry for Communications between 1924 and 1944 (see here for more informations, note that at that time both the Railways and the Post Service were part of the State administration under the direct control of the Ministry for Communications, before their transformation in private societies in the 1990s). They are therefore works for hire, the most recent building between them fell under Template:PD-ItalyGov in 1960 and they are all buildings built before 1990 so no issue with US copyright.--Friniate (talk) 16:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

 Support as with the other cases of Italian "PD-Gov" buildings. --Rosenzweig τ 11:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: per previous undeletion requests. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Rocky's Fight Against Apollo Creed - Rocky - Prime Video.webm

This file was deleted with reason "This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: Although this video was licensed under CC on YouTube, Prime Video is not the copyright owner for the Rocky film". This decision is seemingly an oversight due to the YouTube account being an official account of Amazon, and Amazon having procured MGM studios and rights to the Rocky franchise per [4]. Second guessing whether a studio/label owning a movie franchise really did intend to release something with a CC-BY license was dealt with in some depth at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Hogwarts Legacy (outcome was 'Keep') and a decision to second guess Amazon for Rocky would be highly inconsistent with that past decision (and others like it). Note that this YouTube account in question only releases some, not all, videos with a CC-BY license, and the process of selecting a CC-BY license in YouTube's interface is opt-in. The YouTube account of Amazon was created in 2016 and the various CC-BY licensed videos have been published for over a year. --Dhx1 (talk) 00:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose The file description says it comes Prime Video AU & NZ. It does not appear on that page and there is no license review. Therefore there is no evidence of the license that was on the file.

Prime Video AU & NZ (PVAN) is probably a subsidiary of Amazon. MGM is a subsidiary of Amazon. However, there is nothing in the law that makes it automatically possible for one corporation to freely license a copyright owned by another corporation, even if both corporations are owned by the same parent corporation.

Therefore this fails for two reasons -- PVAN probably does not have the right to freely license the work and there is no evidence of the license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

The licenses are not on the welcome page of the channel, but on the pages of the individual videos, in this case on the page https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GggYdiN_YQ8, licensed CC BY. However, the presence of different corporations does make this sort of licensing situation questionable. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Now Amazon owns MGM, including the rights of MGM catalog, so the license is IMO valid. However I am quite surprised they made this bold move. Yann (talk) 19:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
No, MGM has the rights to freely license the catalog. Amazon, although it owns MGM, is a separate corporation and cannot license MGM's works to others unless there is an appropriate license between the two. Similarly, PVAN is not Amazon, so it would also have to have a separate written license in order to freely license MGM's works. I think it likely that this is an unauthorized action by someone at a small subsidiary company. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: Amazon shows MGM works on its Prime channel, so it certainly got the right of MGM works. Actually that was the reason for acquiring MGM in the first place. We should stop thinking that YouTube channels of big corporations are managed by students in internship or trainees. Yann (talk) 14:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
No, all that is required for Amazon to show MGM works on Prime is for MGM to have licensed that use. Such licenses, even from subsidiary to parent, would not generally include the right for Amazon to freely license the work to others, let alone for Amazon to allow a different subsidiary to freely license the MGM work. Although MGM is owned by Amazon, you may be sure that the people running MGM are very careful about their copyrights since their bonuses certainly depend on MGM's licensing revenue. Although Amazon owns MGM, it cannot ride roughshod over MGM or it won't have any senior staff there. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: OK, you convinced me. --Yann (talk) 14:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

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

file:Ken Macalpin the Niger.jpg

Ken MacAlpin the Niger- i own this file and purchased from Shutterstock — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmcdonald19751975 (talk • contribs) 11:54, 2 April 2024‎ (UTC)

 Oppose There is no Shutterstock plan that allows you to freely license one of their images as required here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:48, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose Just like buying a book does not mean you own the copyright, buying a photo from a company like Shutterstock does not mean you own the copyright either. Their licenses would not allow you to further give it away or license it to others, which is required by site policy. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim and Carl. --Yann (talk) 09:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Flag of Damyang (2000-2023).svg

I uploaded an old version of the file that was uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons, but it was deleted due to copyright issues. -- Sangjinhwa (talk) 13:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

 Support unless the SVG contained a copy of the exact bitmap from crwflags, which it does not. Of course a flag drawing from one author is going to look like one from another, but each vectorization is going to be different. This seemed to result out of a violation of COM:OVERWRITE (though by the same author); File:Flag of Damyang.svg was overwritten and the old image was being re-uploaded under a new name. We should probably go through a COM:SPLIT process on that file rather than just restoring this one directly. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Carl Lindberg. --Yann (talk) 14:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

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

File:HumphreyCarverImage.jpg

has no copyright restrictions. it comes from Library and Archives Canada / PA-205779. https://recherche-collection-search.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/home/record?app=fonandcol&IdNumber=3410143

Library and Archives Canada / PA-205779

shows Nil on Restrictions of Use. The image could say Photo Credit and Copyright John Reeves, so I want to confirm its use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22vkm1 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 2 April 2024‎ (UTC)

  •  Oppose At LAC, "restrictions on use" and "copyright" are different things and are indicated on separate lines. "Restrictions on use: Nil" means no restrictions on use other than copyright. It does not mean free use. It has been confirmed with LAC. See also the introduction to the LAC category. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose Agreed. Note that the cited text shows:

Terms of use:
Credit: John Reeves / Library and Archives Canada / PA-205779
Restrictions on use: Nil
Copyright: John Reeves [emphasis added]
.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 14:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Main Wiki Photo, Grace Strobel.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This photo was taken by Linda Strobel, the subject's mother, who provided it for purpose of including it on Grace Strobel's Wiki page. AllianceWriter (talk) 17:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

@AllianceWriter: So why did you claim at upload that YOU are the photographer who made it? This is blatant copyright violation. Ankry (talk) 08:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Linda Strobel must provide a free license via VRT. This image will be restored automatically, without further action by the uploader, if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT. The current backlog at VRT is 7 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

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

File:General Mohammed Sheikh Osman.jpg File:General Elmi Nuur Tareey.jpg

The photos were published by the government of Somalia and are in the public domain as they are the works of Somalia which has no existing enforceable copyright law. They are not subject to copyright protection.--Solanif (talk) 23:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose Missing verifiable information about the source and author. These photos may have been taken by anybody, including a news agency or photo journalist. Thuresson (talk) 23:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
The source for Mohammed Sheilk Osman.jpg was Xildibhan publications. The photos were taken by the Somali National army and distributed after the coup.
Image source:http://www.xildhibanpublications.net/M.Sh.%20Osman%20copy.jpg
Site:http://www.xildhibanpublications.net/index.htm (Scroll down)
I found another accepted Image taken from the same source whilst searching:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Musa_Rabile_God.jpg Solanif (talk) 00:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose The site cited above has an explicit copyright notice. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:01, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 14:07, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

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

File:WSAW TV 2023.svg

This logo will return

 Not done procedural close: not an undeletion request. Ankry (talk) 08:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Santa Maria Salome.jpg

The file Santa Maria Salome should not be deleted because it is a public domain. It was shared with permission from the owner who shared it publicly. With that, I request for the said file to be undeleted. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiuser1770 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 3 April 2024‎ (UTC)

 Oppose The upload says that the image is from Facebook, but doesn't cite the page there. We do not know the copyright status of either the image or the sculpture. Sharing something publicly does not freely license its use by others..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 14:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Alex Ramirès.png

Dear all, This picture has been deleted after I uploaded it, for copyright reasons. However, this picture cannot be deemed "original" under copyright laws, as the personnality of its author is not expressed through it - anyone could have made the same picture of this man standing still. There is no particular effect, no filter, no research of an artistic input. Thus, it seems it is not protected by copyright laws and belongs to public domain. Would it be possible to restore it please? Thank you for your help. HippoDream12 (talk) 15:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose By French copyright law "The following are considered in particular as works of the mind within the meaning of this code: [...] Photographic works and those produced using techniques similar to photography" (Loi nº 94-361 du 10 mai 1994 art. 1 Journal Officiel du 11 mai 1994). Thuresson (talk) 16:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Under French copyright law, in order to be protected, the work must me deemed "original". As a consequence, there must be an intellectual effort put into the work. When it comes to photographic works, it cannot be a picture taken without any effort, like this picture Alex Ramirès.png. Multiple court decisions have developped this criterion of originality (for instance: Cour de cassation, 1ère chambre civile, 10 avril 2019, nº 18-13.612 [[5]]). Even though this work is a photographic one, listed under Loi n°94-361, it must also be original in order to be protected under copyright - which is not the case. HippoDream12 (talk) 16:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
This is not how French copyright works. Any picture taken by a human is subject to copyright. It doesn't matter if it took 5 seconds or hours to create it. Yann (talk) 17:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
You may find additional information on the "threshold of originality", which is the reason why any picture taken by a human is not de facto subject to copyright, on this Wikimedia page [6]. HippoDream12 (talk) 18:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 Oppose Definitely above the ToO in the US, and likely above the French ToO since this is not a booth photograph or some other perfunctory photograph that essentially eliminates creative choices. Abzeronow (talk) 18:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 Oppose COM:L requires works to be either freely licensed, or in the public domain in both the country of origin and the US. First, there is no evidence that the photographer has released this photo with an acceptable license. Second, even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that this publicity photo of Alex Ramirès is below the threshold of originality in France, it certainly is above TOO in the US, so the US copyright to this photo from 2021 presumably expires 70 years after the death of the photographer. —RP88 (talk) 18:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 Oppose @HippoDream12: Hi,
1. The Cassation Court ruling that you cite is not relevant for the point you are trying to make. For the following reasons:
1.A. The case is not about photographs at all. It is essentially about other elements of graphism present on the album covers. (This ruling does not restate why the photographs present on the album covers were not part of the case. I'm guessing that it may have been simply because the copyright owners of the photographs were not parties to this legal case, which was between the copyright owner of the other elements of grahism and the reuser of the album covers.)
1.B. On the elements of graphism that were actually in dispute, this Cassation Court ruling overturns the ruling of the Versailles Appeals Court that had previously ruled that the graphical arrangements of the album covers were not original. And the Cassation Court sends the case to the Paris Appeals Court. Therefore, the Cassation Court does not make your point.
2. Although indeed some works can be below a threshold of originality required for copyright in some countries, please keep in mind the following aspects:
2.A. In France, through the years, you will find court decisions going both ways about simple photographs.
2.B. Anyway, Wikimedia must comply with the law of the United States. On Commons, it is considered that, under the law of the United States, almost all photos, even very simple, can be considered original enough for copyright.
3.C. Even in the hypothesis that someone could try to make an argument that a photo might be below a threshold, it would be impossible for Commons to make interminable discussions about millions of contributions to decide if they are accepted or not on Commons. Not to mention going to court. Therefore, the practice is to stick to the principle that almost all photos are considered copyrightable, with limited exceptions.
-- Asclepias (talk) 19:32, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Regarding 1 A it seems, if I understand correctly, that the record companies used identical graphic elements and typography when the album was rereleased. Several albums were considered by the court. In one example, identical graphics and fonts were used as in the 1961 edition of the music album but a different photo of the artist was used when the album was rereleased in the 2000s. Compare version A and version B of the record cover. Thuresson (talk) 19:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Almost certainly under copyright in France and certainly so in the USA. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Geschwister-Scholl-Weg Ruhland, 100. Geburtstag Sophie Scholl, am Gedenkstein, 03.jpg

Please restore the File - I have forgotten the license. The right license is {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} (like my photo File:Geschwister-Scholl-Weg Ruhland, 100. Geburtstag Sophie Scholl, am Gedenkstein, 02.jpg). Thank you in advance FrenzelAlexander (talk) 18:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: as requested, license tag added. --Rosenzweig τ 19:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

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

File:UDETANGERLOGO.png

I do not think it is right to remove this file, as it is the logo of a team that stopped practicing more than 30 years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaheray (talk • contribs) 18:34, 3 April 2024‎ (UTC)

 Comment Copyright terms are long and can outlast sports teams easily. When was this logo originally created? Abzeronow (talk) 18:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: 30 years old logo won't be in the public domain before the 2060s at the earliest. --Yann (talk) 10:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

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

File:20220518 Frankfurt vs Rangers UEL Final Dichi Kmada Trophy.jpg

不当な削除で復元を求める。

一丁前にしゃべんじゃねえよ泥棒風情が。--2400:2200:622:B488:109:43F8:9C26:80B2 10:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose Two problems -- it is a Getty image, not {{Own}} as claimed, and it infringes on the copyright for the trophy. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Obviously not, as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 14:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

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

File:FurryManforme1976_Portrait_Picture.jpg

--FurryManforme1976 (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose Deleted as personal photo by non-contributor. No reason given here why it should be restored. Commons is not Facebook. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 14:30, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

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

File:2024-01-27 Ausstellung Antike in Bayern 2.jpg

Please undelete. We have permission per Ticket:2024030410006016. Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 12:04, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Mussklprozz: FYI. I don't understand why this was deleted, as there is a ticket number, and the DR is still open. --Yann (talk) 12:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Pipe Bueno 2023 01.jpg

I suggest to restore this file that was deleted recently, The video where this file comes From YouTube was originally uploaded with a CC license until it was changed to a more restrictive license, so, a user JosefinaDiLeo did post this file to speed deletion, and the original license is archived and avaliable on Wayback Machine as the link of The source says, I don't understand why was deleted before it was reviewed RevengerTime (talk) 13:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

 Support peer RevengerTime AbchyZa22 (talk) 20:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Also restore: File:Amparo Grisales.jpg, File:Amparo Grisales 2023 02.jpg, File:Pipe Bueno 2023 02.jpg

CC License is avaliable on Wayback Machine (see here), --RevengerTime (talk) 01:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment: See also the related Commons:Deletion requests/File:Amparo Grisales 2023 01.jpg. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: per discussion. Files have been licensed reviewed using the archive link. --Abzeronow (talk) 18:10, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

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

File:AKP_Chinraj.jpg

This file is a copyrighted work of the Government of India, licensed under the Government Open Data License - India (GODL). Authorization Method & Scope Following the mandate of the National Data Sharing and Accessibility Policy (NDSAP) of the Government of India that applies to all shareable non-sensitive data available either in digital or analog forms but generated using public funds by various agencies of the Government of India, all users are provided a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license to use, adapt, publish (either in original, or in adapted and/or derivative forms), translate, display, add value, and create derivative works (including products and services), for all lawful commercial and non-commercial purposes, and for the duration of existence of such rights over the data or information.


Examples of other images which have been accepted https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bishweswar_Tudu.jpg --TigerPeacock24 (talk) 23:02, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

@TigerPeacock24: This photo was uploaded as "own work" by User:Arunkumar at KMDK who presents himself/herself as an employee of the political party Kongunadu Makkal Desia Katchi. How can the photo be a government work? Thuresson (talk) 00:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
@Thuresson:  :@Yann: The image was removed because of a copyright violation citing the following link https://loksabhadocs.nic.in/mpimage/photo/4979.jpg which is a Government of India website. The image is an official portrait that has been taken by the Lok Sabha for the members of Parliament and hence GODL applies. The original uploader probably made a mistake in classification as own work which could be related to the fact that the uploader works for the party which the MP is a member of. --TigerPeacock24 (talk) 02:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: No evidence that GODL applies. --Yann (talk) 10:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

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

The deleted text on Nikolina Brnjac's profile along with the proposed image change

The deleted text on Nikolina Brnjac's profile along with the proposed image change has been personally approved by Nikolina Brnjac herself and has been taken from the official website of the Government of the Republic of Croatia. There is absolutely no infringement of copyright here, as the text change was done in collaboration with Nikolina Brnjac, and she personally approved the use of her image, which is again publicly available on the Government of the Republic of Croatia's website. Following all that has been stated, we kindly request that the deleted text in the 'Professional Career' category, along with the proposed image change, be restored as proposed yesterday.

https://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolina_Brnjac — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radicigor1110 (talk • contribs) 08:28, 5. Apr. 2024‎ (UTC)

 Comment I guess this is about File:NIKOLINA BRNJAC.png, which was deleted by Didym as a copyvio and meanwhile re-created (!) by Radicigor1110.
 Oppose the undeletion and  Delete the re-created file. That a photo is available on a Croatian state web site does not mean that it is in the public domain or free to use (per COM:NOP Croatia), and [7] explicitly says "Copyright © 2024 Vlada Republike Hrvatske". I did not see a CC license or similar there. --Rosenzweig τ 12:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
"publicly available" does not mean "copyright expired" (which is what we mean by "public domain"). While it may not be infringement to host it here, site policy requires either freely-licensed or copyright-expired works only -- we call anything else a "copyvio" even if not a violation to host it here, but rather because we want works to be able used elsewhere in many contexts, and we can't promise that with a press-only type of implied permission. A photo must be explicitly licensed with a "free" copyright license (see Commons:Licensing). Additionally, because accounts are anonymous and it's easy to copy photos here, for previously-published works we typically need communication from the copyright owner over private email per the COM:VRT process, which should state the license. Files can be undeleted through that process. The other option would be to state a free license (such as Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike) on the government website where the photo can be found. The stated license tag (PD-US) on the current image is impossible; the U.S. would recognize copyright in an anonymous Croatian work for 95 years from publication (and if the photographer is named and it's not a work for hire, 70pma). Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 10:45, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Mauretania in drydock 1928 autochrome process port side.jpg

Image deleted in 2022 with the reason of "© Clifton R. Adams/National Geographic Society/Corbis/All Rights Reserved". However, that Clifton R. Adams died in 1934, so it may be in the public domain currently. 193.146.182.6 07:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

In the U.S., date of death is not used for the copyright term (though that does mean it's PD in most other countries). The U.S. is 95 years from publication (or 120 years from creation if that is earlier), though older works were subject to certain formalities. The question is if (and when) they were published in National Geographic Magazine. Per UPenn, National Geographic started renewing its issues from February 1929 and on. If this was published in a 1928 edition (or Jan 1929), then it would be PD-US-not_renewed and be OK. If it was published in the magazine only later, it is not OK yet. If it was part of an archive not published in the magazine but only published recently, then copyright would still exist and last a while longer. this page shows a number of other photos from that series, but does not mention if they were originally published in the magazine or not. So, we probably need more information on when this image was first published. If it is the same photo (I'm not an admin so I can't see this one) on this page from 2012, that source states the photo had just "come to light" about a year before that. If true that this was an unpublished image unearthed from National Geographic's archives in 2011, then it will become public domain in 2049 (120 years from creation). Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 Support 1928 picture is in the public domain in USA. If the author died in 1934, it is also in the public domain in UK. The description says "RMS Mauretania in drydock November 1928, Southampton, Hampshire, England". Yann (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

 Support The Facebook image Carl cites is the same image, cropped more tightly. Therefore this is an image first published in 2012 with a known author who died in 1934. The US rule for post 2003 publication with known authors is 70 pma, so it became PD in the USA and the UK in 1/1/2005. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:35, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: The U.S. term for a work for hire is always 95 years from publication / 120 years from creation, regardless if the author is known or not, unfortunately in this case. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 Oppose The Facebook image Carl cites is the same image, cropped more tightly. As noted by Carl above, the fact that it was a work for hire means that it is under copyright until the earlier of 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication. The former is earlier, 1/1/2049. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 Oppose Per Carl Lindberg. Unfortunately. --Rosenzweig τ 15:52, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't get it. If it was only published in 1929, it will be in the public domain in 2025. Yann (talk) 16:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Because it was first published in 2011-2012. Thuresson (talk) 17:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
OK, never mind. Crazy copyright rules. Yann (talk) 21:59, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Yep, and particularly bad for this one. If we can find publication back in the 1920s that would help a lot. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: per discussion. Unless earlier publication than 2012 is found, we would have to wait until 2049 unfortunately. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Carte-poitevin-saintongeais.jpg

Bonjour,

N'ayant pas de réponse, je vous retransmets mon message :

J'ai créé cette carte de voeux pour Parlanjhe Asteur, gratuitement.

Je l'ai modifié ensuite pour Commons W., cette version ne leur appartient pas, et si elle ressemble à leur publication, c'est normal, c'est le but.

Je vous ai déjà écrit, en anglais. Ça n'a pas marché ? Je n'en vois pas la trace.

Dites moi comment justifier tout ça... Pour remettre cette pauvre carte visible sur les articles (peu illustrés) concernant le poitevin-saintongeais.

Merci.

En attendant une réponse de votre part, Bonne journée à toutes et tous.

J.B. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiròni B. (talk • contribs) 08:56, 5 April 2024‎ (UTC)

 Support:

  • The file was uploaded to Commons in August 2015, which was before the external webpage mentioned in the deletion, webpage created in December 2015.
  • The two images on the external webpage are signed by J.B., who is also the uploader of this file to Commons.
  • The uploader publishes some of his works on his personal website under free licenses, which is good. Although there is no real doubt about this contributor who has been contributing to Commons for more than 10 years, maybe he could send one mail to VRT to confirm his identity, which might serve if someone makes deletion requests in some other cases. But it is not required for this file, because of point 1 above.

-- Asclepias (talk) 13:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Asclepias. --Yann (talk) 14:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

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

File:JungStahlhelm.png

This image is both ineligible for copyright and too old for copyright. Hence, it could be tagged with {{PD-shape}} and {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} or similar. Moreover, it was even used as an example in Commons:Threshold of originality#Logos and flags. --Leyo 21:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@Rosenzweig: It was created in 1918 in Germany by an author who could have been known at the time, therefore I don't think we can automatically say it's too old for copyright. I'll wait for others to comment on whether it is below the ToO of Germany or not. Abzeronow (talk) 21:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 Support The original metal pin (try a web search for "Jungstahlhelm Anstecknadel") was a bit more intricate, but this is just a very much simplified recreation which should be well below both COM:TOO Germany as well as COM:TOO US. How much historical value such a simplified recreation has is another question though. --Rosenzweig τ 21:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
The historical value is higher than for the re-drawn version (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jungstahlhelm.svg). --Leyo 22:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: per discussion. --Abzeronow (talk) 22:35, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

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

File:JTobia1.jpg

I'd like an admin to check this file's metadata to ensure if it contains camera info or not. This is to verify that this file was either a work from elsewhere improperly tagged as the uploader's own work or if the uploader did indeed take the photo in question. If this photo was indeed taken by the uploader, this file should be undeleted. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 21:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@JohnCWiesenthal: It does contain camera metadata. The reason given for speedy deletion was "license laundering". Abzeronow (talk) 23:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Ah, please undelete it as I failed to check the metadata before nominating the file. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 23:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: Regular DR created. --Yann (talk) 10:43, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Vuillard - L'Essayage, 1892.jpg

 Keep File:Vuillard - L'Essayage, 1892.jpg has correct proportion compared to File:VUILLARD Édouard L'Essayage Huile sur bois.jpg (2,520 × 3,780 pixels). See https://musees-reims.fr/oeuvre/l-essayage (H x L en cm sans cadre 23,8 x 18,5) --Maltaper (talk) 05:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: OK. --Yann (talk) 10:52, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Victor Nkindi.jpg

The ticket permission was sent through email. 6eeWikiUser (talk) 07:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

A VRT agent will undelete it or ask for it to be undeleted if permission is approved. Abzeronow (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: This image will be restored automatically, without further action by the uploader, if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT. The current backlog at VRT is 7 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Shinji page-0001.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This image has been posted on the copyright holder's SNS. I posted this image at the request of the copyright holder. It is posted on the page below and contains the following text:Licensed under Creative Commons ShareAlike 4.0

https://www.instagram.com/shinji_shishikura 2400:2410:B2A0:C300:35ED:4F05:CF0C:1333 13:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

 Support https://www.instagram.com/p/C42I9y3pXGU/?img_index=1 does state that license (you'd have to scroll down to it in the description). Abzeronow (talk) 17:36, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Abzeronow. License reviewed. --Yann (talk) 18:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Pax Edina One O Clock Gun.jpg

The uploader as full permission from the creator to publish and upload this fil to Commons.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Heffloaf (talk • contribs)

@Heffloaf: Please have the creator contact COM:VRT to verify that they grant a free license to this logo. Abzeronow (talk) 17:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: This image will be restored automatically, without further action by the uploader, if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT. The current backlog at VRT is 7 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

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

File:YES-CEDICT.jpg

This is a photo I took of the front cover of the Chinese-English dictionary I edited for the Hong Kong office of the Journal of Modernization of Chinese Education, as shown by the References of the wiki article en:YES stroke alphabetical order.

P.S. My real name is Xiaoheng Zhang.

--Ctxz2323 (talk) 02:01, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

If there was copyrightable artwork on the cover, the photo would be derivative of that, and we would need permission from the copyright owner of that artwork (be that the artist or the hiring company) via the mechanism mentioned at COM:VRT. If that happens, the file would be undeleted then. I can't see it so I can't be sure, but that was the reason it was deleted, the derivative aspect (not questioning that you took the photo). Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
It's a fairly simple cover of a book. It could possibly apply Pd-simple as it's just text and the layout is not really complex or creative , but I'm not knowledgeable on Chinese copyright law, so... Bedivere (talk) 13:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
That sounds like it would be below the U.S. copyright threshold, then. Less sure on China. COM:TOO China has some examples; they do seem to allow novel versions of lettering/calligraphy as being copyrighted, but standard font stuff less so. The U.S. does not give a copyright to typographical layout... ah, but China does to an extent. (Article 36) A publisher has the right to license or prohibit any other person to use the typographical arrangement of books or periodicals he has published. The term of protection for the right provided for in the preceding paragraph shall be ten years. That may be scoped to other publications using the same layout, not photos of the original though -- not sure that counts as a "use". If it's close, not sure it should have been speedied. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
I will restore the file for a better resolution of this request. Bedivere (talk) 17:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 Support restoration, text is de minimis. Abzeronow (talk) 19:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
I am the editor of the dictionary, which is in pdf, and I printed the hard copy. Ctxz2323 (talk) 22:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 Support I think looking at that. No artwork, and I'm guessing the typographical layout is just for reprints or competing publications, not photos. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 07:04, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

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

File:XingRuiming.jpg

This is a photo of my late grandma, Xing Ruiming.

--Ctxz2323 (talk) 02:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose user claimed own work of an evidently third party work. Please provide correct information Bedivere (talk) 13:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Bedivere. --Yann (talk) 14:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Example.jpg

I think that a Bloomington's flag should be here for the wiki page, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twineeea (talk • contribs) 18:08, 7 April 2024‎ (UTC)

Please provide a file name. This is Wikimedia Commons, so flags have to be free to use by anyone for any purpose so it has to be public domain (by age or too simple for copyright) or have an explicit free license from the copyright holder. Abzeronow (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: No filename provided. --Yann (talk) 07:03, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

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

File:DrGerrard.jpg

The image is taken from the QLD Health website (https://www.health.qld.gov.au/system-governance/health-system/key-people/chief-health-officer), where the copyright information stated (https://www.health.qld.gov.au/global/copyright-statement) shows the image is licensed

TheFedFoxEx (talk) 07:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose As is clearly stated on the cited page, the license is Creative Commons Attribution No Derivatives V4.0 International (CC BY-ND 4.0). ND licenses are not permitted on Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:38, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. The image is not enough freely licensed. ─ Aafī (talk) 19:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Tarjeton Electoral.jpeg

Buenas administradores, necesito que restaure la foto (boletín electoral) porque esta en el Dominio Público {{PD-VenezuelaGov}} porque el CNE (poder electoral,forma parte del sector público) fue el quien creó los boletines electorales para las elecciones en Venezuela y otra cosa los Logos de los partidos políticos son muy pequeños y de minimis según el Usuario:Taivo en el Deletion Request (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Boleta electoral Sotillo Municipales 2018.jpg) dijo en inglés:"Logos are very small and de minimis".AbchyZa22 (talk) 12:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose al contrario del otro archivo, en esta boleta los logotipos son más prominentes y no sé si califica para de mínimis. Cómo sugerí, podrían borrarse Bedivere (talk) 13:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
@Bedivere:Ok,habla con el Usuario Taivo para saber si esta foto forma parte del de minimis?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 13:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Por favor no etiquetes a otros usuarios sin necesidad. Aquí participan activamente diversos usuarios. Bedivere (talk) 13:58, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 Oppose The test of de minimis is if the offending piece can be removed without an ordinary observer noticing the difference. If all of the logos were removed, there would be nothing left here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

But the user Taivo says in DR says:"Logos are very small and de minimis". AbchyZa22 (talk) 13:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

In cases like this, when the whole image is small copyrighted works, none of them can be de minimis. As I said above, in order to prove de minimis you must show that the copyrighted work can be removed without an ordinary viewer noticing the change. Obviously if you removed all the copyrighted works here, anyone would notice because there would be nothing left. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:12, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
But that is in the case of the other deletion request, not this one. This isn't exactly the same "boleta electoral" Bedivere (talk) 14:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 I withdraw my nomination:🤦‍♂️ Ah ok,tienes razón Usuario Bedivere y Jim algunos casos y una cosa Bedivere "Boletin electoral" también conocido como "Ballot papers" AbchyZa22 (talk) 14:21, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: withdrawn. --Bedivere (talk) 14:21, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Files of Category:Het_licht_der_bergen

As I corrected after deletion request, all these files are published on https://abs.lias.be/query/detail.aspx?ID=911214 at the archival storage. Free use, no permission needed and public accessibility.I think no reason for deletion. Ouwejokke (talk) 22:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@Ouwejokke: Current information about the image seems unclear to me: according to Wikidata the author died in 1941, but the work was created in 1955. Also, the permission (if indeed granted by the actual copyright holder - we may need to verify this) is not CC0 as declared. If this is a site-specific license, the appropriate template needs to be created and accepted by the community in COM:VPC discussion. Ankry (talk) 11:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 Oppose I don't see a free license of any kind at [8]. It's an archival web site, they say that the file in question is public and that no permission is required for "usage" (or "gebruik" in Dutch). As I interpret it, you don't need a permission to access and read the file (or "use" it, "gebruiken", in archive speak), which is not surprising because you can use only the digital copy in PDF form ("Enkel digitale kopie consulteerbaar"). I don't see any permission to re-publish etc. those materials there, which is the kind of permission Wikimedia Commons wants. --Rosenzweig τ 22:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: per discussionj. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)


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

File:Liviu_Russu.jpg

deleted file by mistake I am creating an article about my father and the photo is a portrait of him taken by me

--Petru.russu (talk) 22:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose In order to request a succesfull undeletion, please provide a link to an accepted article. Photos are in scope if used not if intended to be used in an article that does not exist yet and may be accepted or not. Ankry (talk) 08:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps this is Liviu Rusu (literat)? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: No response after two weeks. I deleted File:Liviur.jpg which is the same image. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:50, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

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

File:YES Strokes.jpg

This is the inner side of the front page of the little handbook listed in the references of article en:YES stroke alphabetical order. And the outer side in red is shown at the top of the article. I am the editor of the book.

--Ctxz2323 (talk) 02:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

We have no way here of knowing who Ctxz2323 actually is, so it would be good if you confirmed your editorship for both this file and File:YES handbook.jpg with a message via VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

My user Page will tell you that I am Xiaoheng Zhang, 张小衡，the editor of the book. Ctxz2323 (talk) 23:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Yes, but unfortunately we get many imposters on Commons -- anyone could claim that they are you. That is why we have VRT, which can deal with you confidentially. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:41, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: No response from uploader. If permission is received, it will be restored. --Bedivere (talk) 04:53, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Example.jpg

salam səklin bərpasına koməklik gostərin Vəli Ələkbərov Yusif Məmmədəliyev — Preceding unsigned comment added by Şamxal1990 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 7 April 2024‎ (UTC)

@Şamxal1990: I assume this is about File:Vəli Ələkbərov yanında Əli Əliyev,Şəfaət Mehdiyev Elmi Bilikləri Yayan Cəmiyyətin Ümumittifaq plenumunda akad. Yusif Məmmədəliyevlə birlikdə. Moskva, Kreml 1955.jpg? We need a source for the photograph since you being the photographer of a photograph from 1955 is very unlikely. Azerbaijan has a copyright term of life of the author plus 70 years so this is photograph is not public domain there yet. Who is the photographer and when did they die? Abzeronow (talk) 18:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
The image was taken in Moscow. The country of origin depends on where it was first published -- Russia or Azerbaijan. In fact we have no evidence that it was published at all before it appeared here. In both Russia and Azerbaijan anonymous works are under copyright until 70 years from first publication. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Not done, no response from OP other than reuploading the file as File:13x18 02 (1).jpg. Thuresson (talk) 02:01, 11 April 2024 (UTC)


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

File:SyedAhmed PashaQuadriaimimx400.jpg and others

I am the copyright owner of these images I want to Undelete em.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eaglespirit (talk • contribs) 20:50, 8 April 2024‎ (UTC)

 Oppose Why do you claim copyright for all of these? An examination of some of them, as noted above, does not find any images that freely licensed and none with your name at the source. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Images copied from the Internet. No evidence of permission or a free license. --Yann (talk) 09:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)


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

File:JORGE ALVAREZ MAYNEZ.jpg

Hola se ha eliminado la fotografía del candidato un bot Ruso la ha estado modificando

[Hello, the candidate's photograph has been deleted, a Russian bot has been modifying it / Google translation]
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chacheraruto (talk • contribs) 22:25, 8 April 2024‎ (UTC)

 Oppose The image was deleted because the EXIF shows:

Author Delia_Martinez
which is not the name of the uploader. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 08:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)


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

File:AKP_Chinraj.jpg

GODL Application

@Yann: @Thuresson:

The image was removed because of a copyright violation citing the following link https://loksabhadocs.nic.in/mpimage/photo/4979.jpg which is a Government of India website. The image is an official portrait that has been taken by the Lok Sabha for the members of Parliament and hence GODL applies. The original uploader probably made a mistake in classification as own work which could be related to the fact that the uploader works for the party which the MP is a member of. --TigerPeacock24 (talk) 23:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

It is not possible to resolve competing copyright claims at this page. The established procedure is for the copyright owner to follow the instructions at Commons:VRT. Thuresson (talk) 09:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: This image will be restored automatically, without further action by the uploader, if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT. The current backlog at VRT is 7 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC)


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

File:Sharan Pasricha.jpg

Please undelete this file: File:Sharan Pasricha.jpg|thumb|Image of Sharan Pasricha Reason: File has license to be used as noted by image here: https://ennismore.com/about/sharan-pasricha/ Jjsmith11 11 04 24 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjsmith11 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 11 April 2024‎ (UTC)

 Support Licence is compatible with Commons (CC-BY-4.0) Michalg95 (talk) 12:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
How is "© Ennismore 2024" anywhere near compatible? Bedivere (talk) 21:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: Upon closer review the file is actually CC-BY. --Bedivere (talk) 02:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)


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

File:WMATA Metrobus Route Map March 12, 1995 Part 1.jpg

This is my own work that is highly useful for the public to know especially if they are interested in DC Transit Routes. Also, I no longer have the map I took pictures of since I misplaced it in my home so please at least temporarily undelete this file. I want to download that file back as well as other pictures I took of the WMATA Metrobus Route Map on March 12, 1995. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctor of Directions (talk • contribs) 17:07, 11 April 2024‎ (UTC)

 Oppose Yes, your file would have educational value, but the photograph on the cover of the map is copyrighted. Abzeronow (talk) 17:38, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
but it is my own work that is a primary historical source. I didn't have to take pictures and upload them to wikimedia but chose to do so to allow others to know the history too. I paid lots of money for this map on Ebay, so at the very least, allow me temporary access so I can download all of the WMATA Metrobus Route Map 1995 files I have uploaded. I misplaced the map, thinking that wikimedia commons would allow the photos to remain, and really want to redownload those files on my phone but am unable to access them on wikimedia commons, even if you do not want to allow my pictures to be posted on wikimedia commons permanently. Doctor of Directions (talk) 18:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Paying money for a map on Ebay doesn't give you any part of the copyright of the map. I do hope you're able to find your copy of the map, I have a bit of a collection of maps myself, so I understand how you feel about them. Abzeronow (talk) 18:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Can my pictures of WMATA Metrobus Route Map March 12, 1995 be all temporarily undeleted on wikimedia commons so I can download them now? I would really appreciate this. These photos were deleted yesterday before I even had knowledge of them being deleted. By the time I saw my wikimedia commons profile, they were already gone and nowhere to be seen. Doctor of Directions (talk) 18:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
This was the first time I have seen my wikimedia commons photos gone right away after the warning. Doctor of Directions (talk) 18:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
I have close to 38 photos of the WMATA Metrobus Map March 12, 1995 on wikimedia commons that I need temporarily undeleted so I can download them back onto my phone. Doctor of Directions (talk) 18:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

This is my own work that is from a primary source I took pictures of, the WMATA Metrobus Route Map 1995. This is useful for those who want to know about the history of DC Transit Routes. Please at the very least, temporarily undelete this file so I can redownload it on my phone as I misplaced the actual map in my house.

Signed by: Doctor of Directions

April 11, 2024

Please group your requests. It adds work for us when you attempt to make 20+ individual requests when 1 request will do. Abzeronow (talk) 18:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 Oppose Doctor of Directions These maps and all of your still existing copies of maps on Commons are copyright violations, so I suggest you download them now because they will be deleted soon. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:24, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
my copies are nowhere to be found though. I am only looking for the copies of WMATA Metrobus Route Map March 12, 1995 Doctor of Directions (talk) 20:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 Oppose as deleting admin. These are photos of a copyrighted work and the claimed license was false. Additionally, poor-quality photos of tiny sections of a map are not useful for Commons. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
I need my photos of the WMATA Metrobus Route Map March 12, 1995 (deleted by you, :Pi.1415926535) temporarily undeleted ASAP so I can redownload those files since I misplaced the map. PLEASE 73.116.192.61 23:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
I need my photos of the WMATA Metrobus Route Map March 12, 1995 (deleted by you, :Pi.1415926535) temporarily undeleted ASAP so I can redownload those files since I misplaced the map. PLEASE I am begging you, at least grant me temporary access by temporarily undeleting these photos! Doctor of Directions (talk) 00:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Would it be possible for you to email me the photos of WMATA Metrobus Route Map March 12, 1995 that you administrators can still view which I cannot view, if at all you do not want to temporarily undelete my photos? Doctor of Directions (talk) 00:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: No consensus to restore. --Bedivere (talk) 04:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Mariam Jashi in Parliament.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This picture of former MP of Georgia, Mariam Jashi was a work of Parliament of Georgia (Public Relations and Information Department). The photo was in a free circulation across Georgian web and media, including Parliament of Georgia website. The Georgian Parliament does not have protective rights on this file and to any photo materials at all, unless it is watermarked. And as I indicated in my explanation all legal aspects regarding the photo were protected and the final deletion of the file by Jameslwoodward was incurred without further investigation, which is very disappointing. The user "Emperor of Emperors" who nominated the deletion, spams the deletion process of the photo materials of Georgian politicians on Wikimedia Commons. This is a mistake and instead of wordless deletion, an additional edit suggestions should have been recommended for the uploader in case it was needed. Crazy users like these poison Wiki and make the platform very subjective beyond the line. Sakweb (talk) 18:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose Ad hominen attacks are unwelcome here; continuing them will get you blocked. You say without any basis in fact, "the final deletion of the file by Jameslwoodward was incurred without further investigation, which is very disappointing." All the further investigation that was required was to go to the source, where I found a clear and explicit copyright notice "© 2019 საქართველოს პარლამენტი".

Please remember that all media is copyrighted and may not be kept on Commons unless (a) the copyright has expired, (b) the file is PD for some other reason -- too simple, made by a US Federal Employee, etc, or (c) is explicitly freely licensed. Almost all images freely circulating on the Web are not free for use on Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. This file can be undeleted only after evidence of it being freely licensed is provided. ─ Aafī (talk) 21:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)


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

Images of Stadio Artemio Franchi

Hi everyone. I'm writing here to ask for the undeletion of File:ArtemioFranchiwiki2.jpg, File:ArtemioFranchiwiki3.jpg, File:Entrata artemio franchi.JPG, File:Stadio artemio franchi (esterno).JPG, all deleted in this DR in 2013. The depicted monument is en:Stadio Artemio Franchi, built between 1930 and 1931 and designed by en:Pier Luigi Nervi. As we can read here, the stadium was commissioned and paid by the Municipality of Florence. Therefore it fell under Template:PD-ItalyGov in 1952. The vast majority of the building was built before 1990 so it has no issue with US copyright. The only thing that was built in 1990 are the lowest part of the terraces (the green ones here), built by excavating the pitch. I don't know if they are visible in the aforementioned photos, but anyway I don't think that they are original enough to be above the high italian ToO. And letting aside that, the works of 1990 were commissioned by the Municipality of Florence too and even if there was a copyright, this expired therefore in 2010. The only thing that could be relevant could be the US copyright, but AFAIK the current consensus on commons is that the US law in these cases would give to foreign architects on foreign works the same rights that it gives to US architects on US works, and therefore US FOP should be appliable here. The warning in the category should be removed accordingly.--Friniate (talk) 18:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

 Support as with the other Italian "PD-Gov" buildings. --Rosenzweig τ 13:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: per request and previous requests. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:38, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

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

File:MAGDALENA_CUBROVA_MALBA.jpg

Hello,

The original file I uploaded was a first version, which required the artist's signature for the rights. I visited the artist, and we agreed to upload a different version of her artwork instead, one that I photographed in her atelier. Following the guidelines, I have sent an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org with an attached file containing the necessary permission for this artwork. However, the file was deleted before my email could be processed. I sent the email on April 10, 2024, at 23:23 European time. Could you please advise me on the next steps? I want to ensure that the email met all requirements as per the instructions on Wikipedia. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnaMarieDvorakova (talk • contribs) 22:14, 11 April 2024‎ (UTC)

 Oppose An email from you will not be accepted. We have seen too many forged permissions, so the license must come directly from the artist. Once the artist has sent the email, the image will be restored automatically, without further action by the uploader, if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT. The current backlog at VRT is 12 days. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 08:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Passionate Love Story Phulki.jpg

I found the image from a random site on google. Source=https://www.newsnation360.com/phulki This doesn't infringe any copyright. I think it is for public domain. And the original author of the picture is Zee Bangla, Zee Entertainment Enterprises Pvt Ltd. I would request to Wikipedia team to accept my undeletion request and restore the photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎KJKDITY (talk • contribs) 13:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC) (UTC)

 Not done: Yes, it does infringe upon the author's copyright. Please read COM:L. --Yann (talk) 13:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)


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

File:Manuel rosales gobernador zulia.jpg

La presente es para solicitar la restitución de la imagen File:Manuel rosales gobernador zulia.jpg ya que la misma es usada en todos los perfiles verificados de esta persona. No tiene derechos de autor y la persona en cuestión autorizó su uso para esta pagina.

Atentamente

--Mgm.brandmkt (talk) 14:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Maria Gabriela Moya

 Oppose This is a Twitter image lifted from the account of the subject. There is no reason to believe that the subject has authorized its free license, but even if he had, he does not have the right to do that -- that right belongs to the actual photographer. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Jim. --Bedivere (talk) 21:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)


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

File:田中美久さん (cropped).jpg

削除されたファイルはイベントの時に、投稿者が撮影した写真になります。削除される理由がわかりません。別のページと同様の写真と同じようにルールに乗っ取り、写真を投稿しました。ご確認下さい。 The deleted file will be a photo taken by the poster at the time of the event. I don't understand why it's being deleted. I hijacked the rules and posted the photo just like I did with another page and similar photos. Please check it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanamiku39 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC) (UTC)

 Oppose @Tanamiku39: This was copied from Instagram. Please upload the original picture, or send a permission via COM:VRT. Yann (talk) 16:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: Original picture with EXIF uploaded. --Yann (talk) 17:51, 14 April 2024 (UTC)


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

Request by Mykhailo Hoy

For the File: Гой Володимир Михайлович.jpg, this is a drawing by me of which I possess the copyright. For the pictures of the buildings, these are photos by me, and since the architect is my deceased grandfather, the copyright is transferred to my family and is thus not infringed. Mykhailo Hoy (talk) 13:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

@Mykhailo Hoy: File: Гой Володимир Михайлович.jpg is not a drawing, but an old black & white picture. File:Південна трибуна Тернопільського міського стадіону.jpg looks like a copy from an old print. None of these files had a license. Yann (talk) 16:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
@Mykhailo Hoy: What license do you want to give to the pictures you took yourself? Yann (talk) 15:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done No answer to the crucial question above. Ankry (talk) 16:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

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

File:FlygunCZ2.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Its my own work, uploaded with permission from subject, for his own request to replace the old photo on wikipedia page https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/FlyGunCZ which does not represent him good enough Fediak22 (talk) 14:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

@Fediak22: Why such a small file? It looks like a screenshot or something copied from the Internet. Could you please upload the original image? Yann (talk) 16:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Its screenshot from the stream, is a one-of-a-kind photo, and it was uploaded with direct consent from the subject. Fediak22 (talk) 18:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
For any previously published work (the photo originates from a video published on Instagram without evidence of free license), we need a free license via email coming directly from the work (photo/video) copyright holder; see VRT for details. Ankry (talk) 19:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Its not from published work; it is from livestream that is not published. Please restore the file. Fediak22 (talk) 11:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Fediak22: Please add categories. --Yann (talk) 17:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Tuaron's files

Own works of the uploader, as it shown in ticket:2024010310005013 (other files are still on discussion). Анастасия Львоваru/en 17:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Lvova: FYI. --Yann (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC)


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

File:Папа, 3 д.png

ticket:2024032310002243 is received and approved. Анастасия Львоваru/en 18:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Lvova: FYI. --Yann (talk) 18:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)


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

File:Fredrick Brennan selfie.jpg

 Undelete. Strange deletion. I was only notified due to [9]. If this file is copyvio then so is File:Fredrick Brennan selfie (cropped).jpg, but neither are copyvios and that one is used on many more pages. cc: @GRuban. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 19:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: Deletion completely unwarranted. I have warned Grandmaster Huon not to add such tags without proper investigation. --Bedivere (talk) 19:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)


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

File:1-main.jpg

This image is the source material from which the concert poster, announced on the website of the Haifa theater, was later created. There are no copyright violations here.

Not true, there is: you claimed that you, Wikimedia user Mark Alef, are the author of the poster and all photos used in it. Are you indeed? De you personally own its copyright as claimed? Ankry (talk) 15:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
As VRT ticket 2024041510000802 is received, we can close this now, I think. After the permission is processed and accepted, the image will undeleted. Ankry (talk) 15:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. Please rename it with a mainingful name. --Yann (talk) 17:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Example.jpg

General information. Scientific use

 Not done: No file name provided. --Yann (talk) 10:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)


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

File:スクリーンショット 2023-12-22 17.17.32.png

I request to cancel the removal of this image.

Because the upload of this image was made by the copyright holder and also complies with the CC license.

This image was produced by NIRVA, Inc. which is represented by Atsuhiko Nakata, the subject of this photo.

The subject image can be found at the following URL in the web community operated by NIRVA Inc. and is marked with the cc license symbol and other information.

I am in charge of systems at NIRVA, Inc. and am uploading this photo to wikipedia at the request of Atsuhiko Nakata, the representative of NIRVA, Inc. and in compliance with the CC license.

https://info.progress.salon/owner

I would appreciate it if you could cancel the deletion of this image.

Translated with DeepL.com (free version)

--安在哉 (talk) 04:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose @安在哉: This need to be resolved in VRT ticket 2024031410003723, not here. If the ticket is unresponded or you have questions about its processing, you may ask in COM:VRTN. Note: the permission must come directly from the photo copyright holder and if the copyright holder is not the author (photographer), VRT may need an evidence of copyright transfer. Ankry (talk) 13:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Ankry. --Yann (talk) 19:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

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

File:MichaelWB.jpg

Person claims per Ticket:2024040910005113 that the image is a selfie. If this seems plausible, please restore it. If not, please give me a reason so I can answer the client within the ticket. Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 07:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Mussklprozz: FYI. It could be taken with a timer. --Yann (talk) 10:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)


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

File:Horsfall-01.jpg

Hi,

I'd like to request undeletion of this picture. As the photographer that took the image, officially for Stockport County FC, I am personally in a position to use images of this nature for use like this.

Evidence of my potion at the club can be found here...https://www.stockportcounty.com/the-club/contacts/ under the heading: Club Photographer

--MGPetch (talk) 14:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@MGPetch: :
  1. At upload you declared that you are the author of the photo (photographer). This is not the same as I am personally in a position to use images of this nature and providing false or inacurate information is serious violation of Wikimedia Commons policies.
  2. Being in a position to use images is not the same as authorized to grant a license for them. License is a contract signed by the copyright holder ir their official representative.
  3. Per our policy, for any image that has already been published without evidence of free license we require a written free license permission via email. See VRT for details. Ankry (talk) 14:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
    I am the photographer that took the image. As stated above. 84.65.141.96 14:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
    So forget 1. above (sorry my mistake), and note that 3. still applies. We are unable to verify your identity on-wiki. Ankry (talk) 15:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Ankry. --Yann (talk) 19:36, 16 April 2024 (UTC)


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

File:Super Nova.jpg

Hello! I would like to attach this image for Wikidata page of the model as well- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andedonia tamaraa (talk • contribs) 19:07, 15 April 2024‎ (UTC)

 Oppose "© Copyright 2024 GTFlix tv s.r.o. All Rights Reserved." The pornographic business usually do not give away their products for free. Thuresson (talk) 20:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: per Thuresson. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Map of same-sex marriage in the United States prior to Obergefell.svg

Supposedly deleted because it was empty or corrupted. But when I tried to upload a valid map in its place, I got an error that it was identical to the deleted file. The file was therefore evidently valid.

This is simply a copy from the file history of File:Same-sex marriage in the United States.svg. Kwamikagami (talk) 22:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

 Info No such deleted file. And File:Same-sex marriage in the United States.svg is not deleted. Ankry (talk) 05:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Okay, since it was never deleted, I re-uploaded it despite being instructed to request it be undeleted here instead. No further action required. Kwamikagami (talk) 11:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 Info: File name is File:Same-sex marriage in the United States prior to Obergefell.svg. --Achim55 (talk) 12:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: withdrrawn. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

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

This isnt a Spam

This isn't a Spam, I am trying to talk about my life and my upcoming opportunities careers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NehemiahENT (talk • contribs) 22:55, 15 April 2024‎ (UTC)

Procedural close. About en:User:NehemiahENT. Thuresson (talk) 23:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)


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

File:Fuerza y Corazón por México.svg

Esta imagen fue borrada arbitrariamente, está contemplada en la página 25 del convenio de coalición celebrado entre los partidos PRI, PAN y PRD (https://repositoriodocumental.ine.mx/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/165534/CGex202402-21-rp-3-a.pdf). Además de que en México, el artículo 14 de la Ley Federal del Derecho de Autor, la considera NO elegible para proteccion federal. --Alberto0617 (talk) 00:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh so can I get my article without the images? 99.90.18.239 00:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose The cited PDF does not have a free license. Also note that when they uploaded the image, Alberto0617 claimed that they created it. Now they say something different. Making incorrect claims of authorship is a serious violation of Commons. rules. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 16:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)


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

I believe the content of the page is accurate and provides valuable information about [Subject of the Page]. Please restore the page for the benefit of Wikipedia users.

I apologize for any confusion caused by the uploaded image. I do not require the image and would appreciate it if you could restore the page without the image. I've been in contact with support for a few days now and have removed all content that is harmful or violates Wikipedia's guidelines.

Thank you for your understanding and assistance.

With respect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MainMasked (talk • contribs) 03:49, 16 April 2024‎ (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Oppose Unsigned request with no subject named. Editor's only contribution, File:Masked.png was deleted as a personal photo of a non contributor. The page referred to above is probably on WP:EN where the user is blocked. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Obviously not, as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 19:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)


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

File:Barbara Stephens 1922-1947.jpg

This is my photograph, I own it. Malbuff (talk) 18:57, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

@Malbuff: Physically possessing a photograph doesn't mean you have the copyright to it. This appears to be created in 1946 in China, who is the photographer and where and when was it published? Abzeronow (talk) 19:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: per Abzeronow. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC)


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

File:The Toreador.jpg

Image from 1903, over 120 years old. Please undelete it because it's {{PD-old-assumed}}. Michalg95 (talk) 08:02, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

 Support per above. Ankry (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 08:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

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

File:2022-Plato Openday.pdf

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Please undelete per ticket 2023062410004772. Thank you, janbery (talk) 11:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Janbery: FYI. --Yann (talk) 16:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)


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

File:Madonna Kehrstr 24.Niederfell.jpg

Canceled file is a close-up of allready commons loaded File:Madonna Kehrstr. Niederfell A 2023.jpg

Gelöschte Bilddatei ist eine Ausschnittvergrößerung der bereits auf commons hochgejadenen Datei File:Madonna Kehrstr. Niederfell A 2023.jpg--Dieter rogge (talk) 14:43, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

 Support undeletion. License had been added. --Achim55 (talk) 16:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done per above: out-of-process deletion; @Krd: please, be more careful when deleting. Ankry (talk) 16:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)


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

File:Mohammadzaidmansoori.jpg

hello This is Mohammad Zaid Mansoori musical artist in india he has launched many music in difference platform also he is digital marketing artist in india also he has google Knowledge panel as an musical artist https://g.co/kgs/smyPtW9 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohammadzaidmansoori8 (talk • contribs) 08:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC) (UTC)

 Not done: Account solely here for self-promotion. Blocked. --Yann (talk) 08:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

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

File:UNDP_Shoko_2024_3_profile pic.jpg

Undeletion request: I wrote this page based on a request from Ms. Shoko Noda, my previous supervisor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoko_Noda I have a permission from her to use the photo. How can I prove it and make this photo undeleted? Thank you for your advice in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuta Kono (talk • contribs) 16:43, 15 April 2024‎ (UTC)

In the upload, you claimed that you were the actual photographer. Is that correct? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: This seems own work, AFAICT. --Yann (talk) 12:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

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

File:ROC Ministry of Justice Emblem.svg

Related discussion. Per {{PD-ROC-exempt}}, the file is not copyrighted, and the edit history should be restored.—— Eric Liu（Talk） 03:23, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done procedural close: image not deleted - nothing to undelete. Ankry (talk) 05:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

@Ankry: The original file history before the deletion are still missing. The current version is re-uploaded by transferring the file from zhwiki, but not the result of Common file undeleted. The former delete decision should be overturned too. Please see this discussion for reference. —— Eric Liu（Talk） 13:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
I've restored previous editions but these are not from the Chinese Wikipedia, but local ones. Bedivere (talk) 05:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Understood, and after all, that is the solely request I'd like to make. —— Eric Liu（Talk） 14:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Choji modo mariposa terminado.jpg

Hi My name is Adrián Pérez.

This fanart is made by me, I am a choji Akimichi fan, I request the undeletion because I stated that I own the Instagram accounts where I upload my drawings, Sparkyrocket.

I uploaded It to devian art also

https://www.deviantart.com/byrocket09

Same email, <redacted>.

Contact with me and I can show you a sketch from this same project I did. Screenshots yo confirm that I own my account, (Sparkyrocket).

Whatever. I dont want to steal my own creation. Please fix It.

If the watermark needs to be removed just tell me.

I just LOVE this character.

I Hope i helped the community, including choji fans and Naruto comunnity

--Byrocket09 (talk) 15:50, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose Since it was published elsewhere before being uploaded here, a formal written permission from the copyright holder is needed. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure. Yann (talk) 16:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: This image will be restored automatically, without further action by the uploader, if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT. The current backlog at VRT is 7 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

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

File:RAUL LEONI.jpg

File:RAUL LEONI.jpg

Hi, I'm Loyer8, I write you by file deleted (File:RAUL LEONI.jpg), my reason for i'm writing it's because i need that file by a page in the spanish Wikipedia, because it is the presidential photography of Raúl Leoni (President of Venezuela 1964-1969).--Loyer8 (talk) 22:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC) Loyer8 17/04/2024

Who is the photographer? Where does the Creative Commons license come from? Thuresson (talk) 23:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 Oppose:Para mi opinión esa foto no forma parte del Dominio Público ({{PD-Venezuela}}),no se si era fotografiado por un anónimo AbchyZa22 (talk) 12:28, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Leoni was president from 1964-1969, so the earliest possible PD date in Venezuela would be 1/1/2025 and 1/1/2060 in the USA. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:46, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by 阿米娅2011

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Bcoz I am do just can say little English, so just can provide Simplified Chinese text. Coser1和2图像很显然是AI生成图片，上传者明显不持有任何著作权，CC0无问题。其次是Bili World图像，那张图片是我自己拍摄的，由于相机过老，原始图像只有那么大。邮资邮简被删除原因我看不懂。 阿米娅2011 (talk) 08:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose The first two are the front and back of a copyrighted postal envelope. The second is probably below the ToO but is meaningless without the front.

The next two are AI images. We do not keep personal art from non-notable artists, so these are out of scope.
The Squirrel Conspiracy deleted the last as a copyright violation, but it is not obvious why. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
The first two were copyvios, the second two would be copyvios if AI art were copyrightable (it's not the uploader's work, they ripped it off a social media site), so it's safe to assume that the fifth is also probably a copyvio. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:16, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
De facto, bili~Kal'tsit 这张图片的确是我自己拍摄的图像，那台相机的分辨率只有那么大，如果你看过那张照片的EXIF信息，你查阅一下这台照相机的参数你就明白了。（I am do not know the text how translate it to Eng. Just can provide Chinese text）Jameslwoodward 阿米娅2011 (talk) 06:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
So I am need to prove the pic copyright belong to myself?? Other pics was deleted I am do not have any problem. 阿米娅2011 (talk) 06:31, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
If the pic was generated by myself, 是否我可以上传？（也是和这两张图片的主题一致） 阿米娅2011 (talk) 06:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: ToO? what does mean? 阿米娅2011 (talk) 08:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
如果这张图片不能以CC-BY-SA 4.0的协议下保存，能不能转换成合理使用内容？（因为中文维基百科的确缺少对此的图像，有期望使用。） 阿米娅2011 (talk) 08:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
ToO means Threshold of Originality -- which is to say that the envelope back is too simple to have a copyright.
Fair use depends on the country and is not permitted on Commons, so this is the wrong place to ask about it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:31, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
I mean is how to move the file to Chinese Wikipedia... C.W. allow fair use file. 阿米娅2011 (talk) 12:47, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
首先請善用翻譯器。其次，如果有原檔的話，應該自己上載到中維就可以。 TanoDano (talk) 04:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
该文件我上传时已经没有了，恐怕就是需要临时还原一下。避免自动翻译翻译错意思我就没用。 阿米娅2011 (talk) 11:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: per discussion -- nothing for a week. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)


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

Files deleted by Krd

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The files were deleted because they were uploaded by an abusive account, but they all are PD images, so I guess we can keep it here. Sreejith K (talk) 02:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

 Info Being free is not enough to host an image here. As we do not want to support abusers, the images may be undeleted if you need to use them in a specific article. Please, point out the article. Ankry (talk) 05:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 Support undeletion. There has been consensus that having been uploaded by a blocked user who is abusing multiple accounts is per se not a valid reason for deletion if the images are out of copyright. Unfortunately hundreds of images have gone down the drain this way. --Achim55 (talk) 10:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 Oppose Achim55 , you are not one of us who has to fight serial abusers. I strongly oppose giving them any encouragement. If we continue to refuse to keep images that they have uploaded, perhaps they will go away and stop wasting valuable CU time that could better be used for other activities. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
I think some people are not aware that we've had a RfC 4 years ago. As already said, deleting an image that would be kept if someone else had loaded it up is IMO nonsense. To demonstrate: See File:Réception des chevaliers du Saint-Esprit dans la cathédrale de Reims.jpg and File:Porträt von Erzherzog Ernest von Habsburg.png. In addition, I'd like to point to the punitive/preventive thing. What is prevented by such deletions? Nothing, there's just a little hope the user might give up. --Achim55 (talk) 13:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
off topic: you are not one of us who has to fight serial abusers made me smile, thanks! You know who is holding the highscore of blocks here on Commons? --Achim55 (talk) 16:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 Support There is a consensus (up to now) that images can be undeleted if there is no copyright issue, and the request is made by a user in good standing. Both points are fulfilled here. Yann (talk) 19:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
No clue why this discussion is here and not on my talk page. The files can be undeleted if the undeleting admin as self verified evidence that the files are in the PD, without trusting any statement the uploader made, as the uploader is known to forge everything. Krd 05:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
@Sreejithk2000: As you are an admin, you can see the files yourself. Did you check the copyright status as mentioned by Krd? Yann (talk) 16:46, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: Verified the license and restored all images. --Sreejith K (talk) 20:28, 18 April 2024 (UTC)


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

File:GalaFCShamkirFC.jpgG

This is and old logo of Shamkir Professional Football club (Azerbaijan) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reshat57 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 18 April 2024‎ (UTC)

 Oppose Please ask the copyright owner of this 2013 logo to follow the instructions at COM:VRT. Thuresson (talk) 21:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: This image will be restored automatically, without further action by the uploader, if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT. The current backlog at VRT is 7 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Strategic Direction of CIS-A2K 2024-27.png

This is an image in alignment with CIS-A2K's meta page outling the strategic direction of the team. CIS-A2K is an affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation

✓ Done: I created a regular DR instead. --Yann (talk) 08:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Hudson Towers 17 Month Old Rent Strike Ends in Victory.pdf

Hello,

Gillian Horgan has provided me with emails giving permission to use this article, from both the author, Rick Rossein and from Andrea Shapiro, LMSW, Director of Program and Advocacy, Met Council on Housing. I'm not sure how to show that to you for verification.

Ingrid Hughes — Preceding unsigned comment added by IV2022 (talk • contribs)

@IV2022: , please see COM:VRT for instructions on what's needed and where to send it. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 Oppose First, while this is a newsworthy event, we do not generally keep newspaper articles about such events. WP articles may quote from newspapers, but this PDF is probably out of scope. Second, in order to keep this, we will need a free license from each of the writer, the photographer, and the publisher. If the writer and the photographer have work for hire agreements in place, then only the publisher will be required..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Historical newspapers are certainly in scope, but I agree about the lack of permission. There is no copyright notice on these 2 pages (published in 1972). It could be in the public domain if there is no copyright notice on the whole issue. Yann (talk) 08:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: No answer. Please ask again if you have any proof that this was published without a copyright notice. --Yann (talk) 11:51, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Digital Certificate for Technical Grades of Athletes (Ke Jie).png

The file that I am requesting to undelete adopts the same copyright policy as File:Digital Certificate for Technical Grades of Athletes (Zhan Ying).png. (PD-PRC-exempt|type=documents) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TanoDano (talk • contribs) 15:42, 11 April 2024‎ (UTC)

@TanoDano: I cannot see how these documents are covered by PD-PRC-exempt, I would think that we should delete the other digital certificate, rather than undelete this file.  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: per billinghurst. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:08, 21 April 2024 (UTC)


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

File:Hero-carousel-3.svg

Please undelete this file in order for me to fill all the information which absence caused the deletion.

--Goofyhoward (talk) 09:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)De Angellis April 20, 2024

I can find this image at [10], [11] [12] and numerous other websites. You may write below why you believe that you own the copyright to this graphic. Thuresson (talk) 11:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: per Thuresson. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

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

File:MSRY Behbehani Logo.jpg

Hello,

Just wanted to let you know this logo is public. it is available in the official website of the company in www.ebehbehani.com

I also have other files I uploaded which are all in the official website too which includes:

File:MSRY Behbehani Logo Alt.jpg
File:MSRY Behbehani Logo Only.jpg
File:Mohammad Saleh and Mohammad Reza Behbehani.png
File:Behbehani Watch World Logo.jpg

The logo is also available on the subordinate company of the logos which is BehbehaniWatchWorld.com

Regard, Mansour — Preceding unsigned comment added by MBehbehani (talk • contribs) 14:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC) (UTC)

@MBehbehani: Hi,
"Public" doesn't mean anything. Being available on the Internet doesn't remove copyright. You are not allowed to copy anything without a free license at the source. Thanks, Yann (talk) 14:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 Oppose The website has "All Rights Reserved, © Behbehani", which is the opposite of a free license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: you cannot wish for copyright not to apply just because it is on a website.  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)


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

File:passing of a beloved freshwater crocodile at the Hazrat Khan Jahan (R.A.) Shrine in Bangladesh.jpg

Commons:Undeletion requests — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faisallutpat2 (talk • contribs)

@Faisallutpat2: nothing here to undelete. Check your special:listfiles/Faisallutpat2  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: nothing to undelete.  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:24, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Bergantenne.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This grafic was drawn by myself. It was modified from a picture in: O. Scheller: Der Bau der Bergantenne am Herzogstand. Elektrische Nachrichten-Technik, Band 3, Heft 7, Juli 1926 No, it does not come from any book, as Schlosser67 suspects! "This image looks very much like a copy from a book (probably Vilbig's "Lehrbuch der Hochfrequenztechnik"), hence there may be copyright issues" Redober (talk) 15:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

  •  Support - Although the requestor seems confused and not to understand copyright (e.g., acknowledging this to be a derivative work - "It was modified from a picture"), Otto Scheller died 1948, and thus the underlying work would be PD as of 01.01.2019 (1948 + 70 + 1). This information should have been provided at upload, and indeed also at the DR, which was closed appropriately given the (lack of) information available at the time. Redober , please review COM:EVID and COM:DW. It is incumbent on you to provide appropriate evidence and attribution. Эlcobbola talk 17:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: per Эlcobbola . 1926 work, so also PD in the USA. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Logo SSSHPCUNUH.png

Доброго дня. Це зображення - це офіційний логотип коледжу, я пишу це повідомлення як відповідальна особа з цього закладу за поширення інформації по коледж в соцмережах і веб-ресурсах. Той хто поставив собі право власності на це зображення - шахрай. Я загрузив це зображення від імені коледжу, а інші хто завантажив це зображення до мене не правовласники цього зображення. Я можу довести що я дійсно працівник закладу. Будь-ласка вжийте заходи щодо відновлення даного зображення для коректного відображення інформації про коледж на вашому ресурсі.

Good afternoon. This image is the official logo of the college, and I am writing this message as a responsible person from this institution for disseminating information about the college on social networks and web resources. Anyone who has claimed ownership of this image is a scammer. I uploaded this image on behalf of the college, and others who uploaded this image before me are not the copyright holders of this image. I can prove that I am indeed an employee of the institution. Please take steps to restore this image so that the information about the college is correctly displayed on your website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorcollege (talk • contribs) 09:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC) (UTC)

@Gorcollege: Hi,
A legal representative from your institution should confirm the license of this logo (and the image you copied from Facebook). Please see COM:VRT for the procedure. Thanks, Yann (talk) 09:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: This image will be restored automatically, without further action by the uploader, if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT. The current backlog at VRT is 7 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:09, 22 April 2024 (UTC)


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

File:Fuerza Pública de Costa Rica.png

The file in question is CC BY 4.0 DEED per the Ministry of Public Security of Costa Rica, whose page (that was updated in the file page) includes the baner in question. Also, in the last deletion nomination it was kept for this reason. Please undelete. --Mito0504 (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: License reviewed. --Yann (talk) 16:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Logos from the Imprenta Nacional of Costa Rica

The files are CC BY 4.0 DEED as seen in the website of the Imprenta Nacional, and as it was shown in the file page. The last isn´t now published by the Imprenta Nacional, but it was published under the same category, as it can be seen in archive.org. Please undelete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mito0504 (talk • contribs) 13:27, 22 April 2024‎ (UTC)

 Support The page does indeed show CC-BY. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 16:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Behnaz Jafari 13970202001220636600342857623411 11733.jpg

Wasn't this freely licensed (and reviewed)? Hanooz 18:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: Yes, right. --Yann (talk) 07:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)


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

File:Alix Earle in 2023.png

The file was marked for COM:SPEEDY deletion by Seawolf35 (talk · contribs) under the pretext that it wasn't a COM:CC licensed YouTube video. That's patently false; the video, uploaded by Sonali A, clearly has a Creative Commons license in the description ([13]). Furthermore, it was deleted by Wutsje (talk · contribs) for supposedly violating COM:F3, which in my opinion doesn't apply under COM:DEMINIMIS. I doubt that American courts would entertain the idea that someone who was requested to record a >two second clip for a known content creator, primarily featuring said content creator, at an event for content creators, and as such a clip that would have been known to be likely to be used in said content creators' social media, meant that in spite of the rest of the video being freely-licensed, this clip was a NFC for Sonali technically not being the author, per the de minimis test used by US courts. Plus we host files from Nickelodeon and MTV that almost certainly have a stricter copyright understanding between the company and videographers/social media managers than between Sonali and whoever recorded said short clip. Knightoftheswords281 (talk) 02:31, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

You're right, there is a CC license in the video description. Restored the file. My apologies. Wutsje 02:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: License reviewed. --Yann (talk) 07:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)


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

File:Roman Tkachenko.jpg

Ticket:2024042210004072. Please restore the file for permission verification.–TANBIRUZZAMAN (💬) 10:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Tanbiruzzaman: Please add tags etc. --Rosenzweig τ 15:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Category:Japan Association of Corporate Executives

I want to restore this category because I have added some stuff into it.--Shogo1999 (talk) 10:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: as requested. --Rosenzweig τ 15:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Request by Mykhailo Hoy

(posted a similar request shortly and forgot the notifications, sorry)

For the File: Гой Володимир Михайлович.jpg, this is indeed an old picture from a black and white album, the photographer would be my deceased mother, so the copyright should be transferred to me. For the pictures of the buildings, these are photos by me, and since the architect is my deceased grandfather, the copyright is transferred to my family and is thus not infringed. File:Південна трибуна Тернопільського міського стадіону.jpg is not a copy from an old print but actually a photo taken by an older camera. The buses may be confusing, but some of them do look like this in Ternopil. Could I give a FAL license to the photos by me? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mykhailo Hoy (talk • contribs) 23:26, 20 April 2024 (UTC) (UTC)

@Mykhailo Hoy: Hi,
I undeleted them. Please add a description, the date, and categories. Yann (talk) 11:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Sure, thank you very much. Mykhailo Hoy (talk) 17:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 18:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)


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

File:Ocean Globe Race 2023 - Start of 1st leg.jpg

As per the text below the image in the link provided by the previous user as a prove of right violation:

McIntyre OCEAN GLOBE 2023 - COPYRIGHT FREE for Editorial Use. SPECTACULARLY EMOTIONAL START TO MCINTYRE OCEAN GLOBE. Explorer (AU) first cross the line. 50 years of sailing history on display on the Solent. THE OGR is ON! Credit: Gary Cross / OGR2023 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎SilvioT (talk • contribs) 14:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC) (UTC)

@SilvioT: Hi, I suppose this concerns File:Ocean Globe Race 2023 - Start of 1st leg.jpg, but you didn't provide the file name.
Related DR: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ocean Globe Race 2023 - Start of 1st leg.jpg
Media "free for editorial use" doesn't allow you to upload them here under a free license. Only the copyright holder can do that. Please ask them to send a permission for a free license via COM:VRT. Yann (talk) 15:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 Oppose Agreed. Commons requires that images be free for any use anywhere by anybody. "Editorial use" is very limited. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 18:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)


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

File:Porto SC-BA (BRA) 2023-03.png

Estar tudo correto o png do escudo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saulozzz (talk • contribs) 17:13, 22 April 2024‎ (UTC)

Please explain why this image should be undeleted. Thuresson (talk) 18:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
is the representation of a football club Saulozzz (talk) 20:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Are you a professional logo designer? How did it come to pass that you own the copyright to this logo? Thuresson (talk) 22:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 Oppose pt:Porto Sport Club was deleted anyway. Thuresson (talk) 21:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Copyrighted logo. --Abzeronow (talk) 21:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Nouriel Roubini.jpg

To whom it may concern,

I am requesting the undeletion of this image file, on the grounds that it is public domain. Kindly see the attached personal website link, wherein you will find the aforementioned image. If you take the time, you can also find this image in 11 other locations, in any reverse image search engine.

Link: https://nourielroubini.com/home/nouriel-roubini/

Nouriel Roubini's image on the Wikipedia site is currently outdated from 2012, and this is the image he seems to use now.

Please review this information. Thank you, Rma2022

 Oppose Photograph is not public domain, it's copyrighted by default. Publicly available on the internet doesn't equal public domain. No free license indicted on source page. Abzeronow (talk) 19:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Abzeronow. --Yann (talk) 21:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)


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

File:Arizona state seal.svg

This file was wrongly determined by the closing admin (Jameslwoodward) to be copyrighted. The mentioned restrictions do not appear to be copyright-related: rather they are restrictions meant to prevent official government symbols meant to be misused. This is why the tag {{Insignia}} exists, because such restrictions may be similar to those covered by copyright to inexperienced users. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:State Seal of Arizona.svg, which kept another version. funplussmart (talk) 21:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

 Question But which copyright template applies here? This seal is not "legislative enactments, judicial decisions, administrative rulings, public ordinances, or similar types of official legal materials" as in {{PD-EdictGov}} which applies rather to textual legal documents, not to seals. Ankry (talk) 22:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, a state seal is usually defined by a state law, which means that creating a rendition based purely from the description in that state law would be a derivative work of a description that is ineligible for copyright. However, that rendition would carry its own copyright owned by whoever made it. funplussmart (talk) 00:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
@Clindberg, Yann, Infrogmation, and IronGargoyle: , who commented on the DR. funplussmart (talk) 00:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
A drawing made from a description is not a derivative work. They are different expressions of the same idea and have independent copyrights. For a seal drawing, the question is who drew it. The other DR was for a drawing made by the US federal government, so it was actually PD-USGov. If you drew the SVG yourself based on a description, it should be whatever license you give it. If it was taken from a website, then it may have a copyright. If you drew it but traced an existing drawing, then that is a derivative work of the other drawing. PD-EdictGov only applies if the drawing is part of the law itself. The DR reason at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Arizona state seal.svg (the insignia law) is definitely a bad deletion reason -- those are trademark-like non-copyright restrictions. The state does not own any copyright over a third-party drawing, so the admin's deletion reason also makes no sense -- the state cannot create its own copyright law. So the question is where did that drawing come from. It was claimed own work on upload given the upload log, but I can't see it. If it appears to be a user-made drawing then  Support, but if copied or derived from a copyrighted version elsewhere, then it could be different. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: We must be consistent between different DRs. Also arguments in the DR and by Carl here support keeping this. --Yann (talk) 08:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Just a note after undeletion -- it is a copy of File:State Seal of Arizona.svg with changed colors, so the drawing is PD-USGov. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

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

File:MSC Philippsburg Logo mit Ball.svg

Didn't realize that the uploader of the file shared the name of the team, restore it and confirm that it is their work via COM:VRT.--Grandmaster Huon (talk) 19:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Nothing to be done here. After VRT permission is received and verified, the file will be undeleted. Ankry (talk) 22:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: per Ankry. --Rosenzweig τ 06:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)


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

Files from User:Frejusvarvolley

Originally logo files from them were deleted out of suspicion that they were above TOO and not their work, but I assume that they represent the organization that created the logos. I suggest they confirm ownership via COM:VRT.--Grandmaster Huon (talk) 19:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Nothing to be done here. After VRT permission is received and verified, the file(s) will be undeleted. Ankry (talk) 22:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: per Ankry. --Rosenzweig τ 06:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)


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

Files from User:Arcdmendiga

Same reason as Files from User:Frejusvarvolley.--Grandmaster Huon (talk) 19:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Nothing to be done here. After VRT permission is received and verified, the file(s) will be undeleted. Ankry (talk) 22:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: per Ankry. --Rosenzweig τ 06:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)


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

Files from User:Futsalta

Per same reasons as above. --Grandmaster Huon (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Nothing to be done here. After VRT permission is received and verified, the file(s) will be undeleted. Ankry (talk) 22:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: per Ankry. --Rosenzweig τ 06:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)


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

File:Ibrahim Sagna2.jpg

The user deleted it without explaining why or leaving any comments.

The reason is Image was deleted within 2 days of upload according to this information which is really suspicious. The license was never verified. Yann (talk) 21:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
It was almost 2 months not 2 days since its upload, and no tags has ever asked for verifying license. Please check again. 6eeWikiUser (talk) 03:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
2 days after the upload the bot attempted to verify the license. But the file was no longer available on Flickr. IMO, we can suspect that this is either due to copyvio, or the uploader requested deletion of their own file within 7 days as our policy states. Ankry (talk) 22:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Apologies I did not receive any notification to verify the license, but it is available on Flickr through this link . 6eeWikiUser (talk) 06:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Indeed, strange. Maybe temporary problem with Flickr.  Support undeletion. Noting only that the license on Flickr is different to the one declared by the uploader. Ankry (talk) 08:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. 6eeWikiUser (talk) 19:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Ankry. But I doubt the license on Flickr is valid. Probably license washing, so DRed. --Yann (talk) 09:09, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Files from User:Broomhillfc

Per similar reasons as above.--Grandmaster Huon (talk) 20:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

But this is a club logo, and not originates from Flickr as the file above. VRT permission from the club authorities is needed in order to undelete it. Ankry (talk) 22:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: per Ankry. --Rosenzweig τ 06:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)


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

File:Letter People Title Card.jpg

The image was a screenshot of a public domain TV show which I screenshotted personally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WatchYoNacho (talk • contribs) 21:38, 22 April 2024‎ (UTC)

If the TV show is public domain, why do you claim to own the copyright? Thuresson (talk) 22:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
That is my mistake, I missed that when uploading. WatchYoNacho (talk) 23:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 Oppose No evidence that this is in the public domain. Taking a screenshot doesn't give you the right to license a TV program. Yann (talk) 08:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 09:09, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Frosch FCG.jpg

Might probably be the work of the account owner, probably verify that via COM:VRT.--Grandmaster Huon (talk) 01:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Nothing to be done here. After VRT permission is received and verified, the file will be undeleted. Or an evidence of expired copyright needs to be provided (depends on when the logo has been used the first time). Ankry (talk) 22:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: per Ankry. --Rosenzweig τ 06:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)


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

File:Eugene Ubalijoro 2.jpg

I want to restore this file because I have its license. 6eeWikiUser (talk) 17:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

@6eeWikiUser: Does the license state that you are the author (photographer) who made this photo? If not, your upload is blatant copyright violation. Ankry (talk) 22:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The license state that I am the holder of the copyright. 6eeWikiUser (talk) 06:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
@6eeWikiUser: We don't accept on wiki claims of copyright if you are not the photographer. Please confirm that you are the copyright holder via COM:VRT. Thanks, Yann (talk) 08:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. 6eeWikiUser (talk) 08:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: This image will be restored automatically, without further action by the uploader, if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT. The current backlog at VRT is 7 days. . --Rosenzweig τ 06:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)


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

Files uploaded by Sinasafdar

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: it sina safdarian boxing player Sinasafdar (talk) 21:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

@Sinasafdar: If they are your Own work as you declared, upload the original files from your camera, not the low-resolution ones. Ankry (talk) 22:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Ankry. --Yann (talk) 09:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)


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

Siri Pettersen images

Please undelete the following images that we have a VRT release for in ticket:2024032510009215. I am a VRT agent for the permissions-no queue.

Jon Harald Søby (talk) 08:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Jon Harald Søby: FYI. --Yann (talk) 09:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Gensowise.jpg

This is a photo I took myself of the artist in San Antonio, TX. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Md050407 (talk • contribs)

  • Images intended to be used in an article are out of scope. Request undeletion after the article is created and accepted by Wikipedia community.
  • As you say about your client you may fall under the requirement of disclosure of your client as stated in the Terms of Use at the bottom of any Wikimedia Commons page. Ankry (talk) 22:31, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
I just need help on getting this resolved since its a misunderstanding, im a new editor Md050407 (talk) 22:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
so im being copyrighted on my own work and own photo? im not breaking any rules under any restrictions≥ Md050407 (talk) 22:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The photo was not deleted due to copyright issues. The photo was deleted as there is no evidence that the subject is notable or that the photo is used in a Wikipedia or another Wikimedia project. After you create a Wikipedia article about the subject and the article will be verified as conforming Wikipedia policies, the photo may be undeleted. But not before. Ankry (talk) 23:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Ankry. --Yann (talk) 12:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)


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

Images of Stadio dei Marmi and Foro Italico

Hello everyone, I'm writing here to request the undeletion of the following images: File:Accademia dallo Stadio dei Marmi.JPG, File:AccademiadellaFarnesinaLatoStadiodeiMarmi.JPG, File:Foro Italico - Olimpico Stadio dei marmi e Farnesina 1000708.JPG, File:Foro Italico Statua Lato Tevere.JPG, File:ForoItAt1.jpg, File:ForoItAt2.jpg, File:ForoItChild.jpg, File:Roma-foroitalico.jpg, File:Roma-foroitalico10.jpg, File:Roma-foroitalico3.jpg, File:Roma-foroitalico8.jpg, File:Roma-fotoitalico.jpg, File:Roma-fotoitalico2.jpg, File:Stadio dei marmi 001.jpg, File:Stadio dei Marmi.JPG, all deleted after this DR in 2013; File:Stadio dei marmi 002.jpg, File:Stadio dei marmi 003.jpg, File:Stadio dei marmi 004.jpg, File:Stadio dei marmi 005.jpg, File:Stadio dei marmi 006.jpg, File:Stadio dei marmi 007.jpg, File:Stadio dei marmi 008.jpg, File:Stadio dei marmi 009.jpg, File:Stadio dei marmi 010.jpg, File:Stadio dei marmi-pano-1.jpg, File:Stadio dei marmi-pano-2.jpg, File:Stadio dei marmi-pano-3.jpg, all deleted after this DR in the same year; Image:Gladiator Statue.jpg, deleted after this DR in 2008; Image:Hercules Rome.jpg, deleted too after this DR in 2008.

These images depict all the en:Foro Italico and the en:Stadio dei Marmi within it. They were both commissioned by the en:Opera Nazionale Balilla, the fascist organization for children and youngsters (see here), to en:Enrico Del Debbio, who at that time was leading architect of the technical department of the organization (see here). The italian law considers the defunct fascist organizations as if they were italian public administrations for what regards copyright (see here articles 11 and 29) and therefore these monuments fall under Template:PD-ItalyGov since 1952. They are buildings built way before 1990, so no issue with US copyright. The two warnings in the categories should be removed accordingly.--Friniate (talk) 22:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

 Support per the precedents we had on this page in the last few weeks. --Rosenzweig τ 06:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Friniate: Please add the template to all images. --Yann (talk) 12:33, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Waterboarding a captured North Vietnamese soldier near Da Nang.jpeg

This file from en.wikipedia was transferred to Commons on 31 August 2023 and was deleted the same day without discussion. From the evidence available, it is a U.S. photo, taken on 17 January 1968, distributed by UPI, first published in the U.S. on 21 January 1968. According to the publication information at en.wikipedia, it was published without a copyright notice. Assuming that is correct, it seems that would make it PD-US-no-notice for Commons. Apparently the file was deleted from Commons under the mistaken impression that the country of origin was determined by the place depicted on the image (Vietnam), when in fact the country of origin is determined by the place of publication (U.S.). (Not only there is evidence that the photo was published in the U.S. no later than four days after it was taken, but there is no evidence that the photo was even published in Vietnam at all at the time.) -- Asclepias (talk) 17:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose I see no evidence that it was published in the USA without notice. UPI required that any use of its images had notice. The Washington Post is mentioned in the upload summary. The Post certainly had a copyright notice on the masthead in every edition. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  • "...no evidence that it was published... without notice": Well, the evidence provided by the uploader on en.wikipedia is a list of six U.S. newspapers, with links to their respective archives at newspapers.com. If someone has a subscription to that website, they could check if the facts are verified.
  • "The Post certainly had a copyright notice": The rationale of the uploader on en.wikipedia is that it was published in many newspapers without notice and that the publications without notice have the effect of placing it in the public domain even if there are also publications with notice, not that one publication or even several publications with notice are sufficient to avoid the public domain when there are multiple simultaneous publications without notice. Does that sound correct in principle?
  • "UPI required that any use of its images had notice.":
-- Asclepias (talk) 23:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: This file didn't even have a proper DR, and the uploader wasn't informed. If it should be deleted, let's do it the right way. --Yann (talk) 09:35, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Schwerter-zum-Flughafen Waffen-fuer-Kiew.tif

Es ist nicht nachvollziehbar, weshalb die Datei gelöscht worden ist. Sie war explizit als eigenes Werk ausgewiesen. Anana Sanana (talk) 04:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

@Anana Sanana: Quelle und Urheber waren als Oliver Kloss angegeben, hochgeladen hat die Datei aber Anana Sanana. Sofern es keine gegenteiligen Hinweise gibt (und die gab es einer kurzen Prüfung nach anscheinend weder in der Dateibeschreibung noch auf der Benutzerseite), gehen wir davon aus, dass das zwei verschiedene Personen sind. Damit wäre es eben kein eigenes Werk. Deshalb wurde ein Baustein gesetzt (samt Benachrichtigung auf der Benutzerdiskussionsseite), der dazu aufforderte, innerhalb einer Woche per E-Mail eine Genehmigung für die Datei zu schicken. Nachdem das nicht geschehen ist, wurde die Datei nach einer Woche gelöscht. --Rosenzweig τ 16:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Wie wird die Identität zwischen User-Namen und bürgerlichem Namen kenntlich gemacht, um dergleichen Irrtümer auszuschließen? Muss der User-Name in den bürgerlichen Namen geändert werden? Anana Sanana (talk) 18:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Am besten durch eine E-Mail ans COM:VRT/de. Wenn die das akzeptieren, können sie auch eine Wiederherstellung der Datei veranlassen. Für zukünftige Dateien am besten gleich beim Hochladen darauf hinweisen, dass A = B ist. --Rosenzweig τ 09:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: This image will be restored automatically, without further action by the uploader, if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT. The current backlog at VRT is 7 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

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

File:T19-connector.jpg

Hi, I got the rights from the owner to place this file under CCO. However, the file is not available and thus hard to provide the copyrights... Please undelete it, so copywrite can be filled in. thanks, Arnaud — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arnaud.neuch (talk • contribs) 15:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC) (UTC)

@Arnaud.neuch: Then please ask the copyright holder to send a permission for a free license via COM:VRT. The file will be undeleted when the permission is validated. Thanks, Yann (talk) 15:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: This image will be restored automatically, without further action by the uploader, if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT. The current backlog at VRT is 7 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)


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

File:Dmgs roundabout onitsha and Azikiwe statue II.jpg

I sent two files, with 2 special and distinctive editing technique - for reviewing. One one was reviewed and the other deleted. Even if I am asked to choose which one to retain, I will choose the deleted one. I hope it will restore back for its peculiar usage. Thank you. MikeJanetta (talk) 21:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: @MikeJanetta: FYI. --Yann (talk) 09:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)


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

File:スクリーンショット 2023-12-22 17.17.32.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: permission confirmed in ticket:2024031410003723 and at [14] (CC BY-SA 4.0). whym (talk) 09:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

It looks like the same picture was uploaded at File:AtsuhikoNakata.png. If the two were not different crops, one might need to be deleted. (I don't know which one that is, though.) whym (talk) 09:05, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: They are nearly identical, but with different tickets. If not needed, it is better to have a proper DR. --Yann (talk) 09:17, 27 April 2024 (UTC)


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

File:Example.jpg

This file from official page https://vk.com/liceygroup https://vk.com/album-18525861_112538207

 Not done: No file name provided. Nothing on this source is free. --Yann (talk) 11:54, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Zdjęcie portretowe Wilhelm Gorecki - autor Grzegorz Rawlik.jpg

A proper agreement has been sent to VTRS. See: ticket:2024042510009704. Polimerek (talk) 11:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Polimerek: FYI. --Yann (talk) 11:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC)


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

Files by Julie Houde-Audet

Please undelete

We have permission per Ticket:2024042610008696.

Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 15:11, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Mussklprozz: Please add the license to each file. --Yann (talk) 15:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive&oldid=837992578"