Commons:Undeletion requests

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Commons:UNDELETE)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Translate this page

Shortcuts: COM:UNDEL • COM:UR • COM:UND • COM:DRV

Other languages:

On this page, users can ask for a deleted page or file (hereafter, "file") to be restored. Users can comment on requests by leaving remarks such as keep deleted or undelete along with their reasoning.

This page is not part of Wikipedia. This page is about the content of Wikimedia Commons, a repository of free media files used by Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. Wikimedia Commons does not host encyclopedia articles. To request undeletion of an article or other content which was deleted from the English Wikipedia edition, see the deletion review page on that project.

Commons deletion (policy)
(Missing: 0 timestamps • 0 reasons • 4 subpages) • 0 malformed
21 copyvios • 9 duplicates • 10 others
v • d • e

Finding out why a file was deleted

First, check the deletion log and find out why the file was deleted. Also use the What links here feature to see if there are any discussions linking to the deleted file. If you uploaded the file, see if there are any messages on your user talk page explaining the deletion. Secondly, please read the deletion policy, the project scope policy, and the licensing policy again to find out why the file might not be allowed on Commons.

If the reason given is not clear or you dispute it, you can contact the deleting administrator to ask them to explain or give them new evidence against the reason for deletion. You can also contact any other active administrator (perhaps one that speaks your native language)—most should be happy to help, and if a mistake had been made, rectify the situation.

Appealing a deletion

Deletions which are correct based on the current deletion, project scope and licensing policies will not be undone. Proposals to change the policies may be done on their talk pages.

If you believe the file in question was neither a copyright violation nor outside the current project scope:

  • You may want to discuss with the administrator who deleted the file. You can ask the administrator for a detailed explanation or show evidence to support undeletion.
  • If you do not wish to contact anyone directly, or if an individual administrator has declined undeletion, or if you want an opportunity for more people to participate in the discussion, you can request undeletion on this page.
  • If the file was deleted for missing evidence of licensing permission from the copyright holder, please follow the procedure for submitting permission evidence. If you have already done that, there is no need to request undeletion here. If the submitted permission is in order, the file will be restored when the permission is processed. Please be patient, as this may take several weeks depending on the current workload and available volunteers.
  • If some information is missing in the deleted image description, you may be asked some questions. It is generally expected that such questions are responded in the following 24 hours.

Temporary undeletion

Files may be temporarily undeleted either to assist an undeletion discussion of that file or to allow transfer to a project that permits fair use. Use the template {{Request temporary undeletion}} in the relevant undeletion request, and provide an explanation.

  1. if the temporary undeletion is to assist discussion, explain why it would be useful for the discussion to undelete the file temporarily, or
  2. if the temporary undeletion is to allow transfer to a fair use project, state which project you intend to transfer the file to and link to the project's fair use statement.

To assist discussion

Files may be temporarily undeleted to assist discussion if it is difficult for users to decide on whether an undeletion request should be granted without having access to the file. Where a description of the file or quotation from the file description page is sufficient, an administrator may provide this instead of granting the temporary undeletion request. Requests may be rejected if it is felt that the usefulness to the discussion is outweighed by other factors (such as restoring, even temporarily, files where there are substantial concerns relating to Commons:Photographs of identifiable people). Files temporarily undeleted to assist discussion will be deleted again after thirty days, or when the undeletion request is closed (whichever is sooner).

To allow transfer of fair use content to another project

Unlike English Wikipedia and a few other Wikimedia projects, Commons does not accept non-free content with reference to fair use provisions. If a deleted file meets the fair use requirements of another Wikimedia project, users can request temporary undeletion in order to transfer the file there. These requests can usually be handled speedily (without discussion). Files temporarily undeleted for transfer purposes will be deleted again after two days. When requesting temporary undeletion, please state which project you intend to transfer the file to and link to the project's fair use statement.

Projects that accept fair use
* Wikipedia: als | ar | bar | bn | be | be-tarask | ca | el | en | et | eo | fa | fi | fr | frr | he | hr | hy | id | is | it | ja | lb | lt | lv | mk | ms | pt | ro | ru | sl | sr | th | tr | tt | uk | vi | zh | +/−

Note: This list might be outdated. For a more complete list, see meta:Non-free content (this page was last updated: March 2014.) Note also: Multiple projects (such as the ml, sa, and si Wikipedias) are listed there as "yes" without policy links.

Adding a request

First, ensure that you have attempted to find out why the file was deleted. Next, please read these instructions for how to write the request before proceeding to add it:

  • Do not request undeletion of a file that has not been deleted.
  • Do not post e-mail or telephone numbers to yourself or others.
  • In the Subject: field, enter an appropriate subject. If you are requesting undeletion of a single file, a heading like [[:File:DeletedFile.jpg]] is advisable. (Remember the initial colon in the link.)
  • Identify the file(s) for which you are requesting undeletion and provide image links (see above). If you don't know the exact name, give as much information as you can. Requests that fail to provide information about what is to be undeleted may be archived without further notice.
  • State the reason(s) for the requested undeletion.
  • Sign your request using four tilde characters (~~~~). If you have an account at Commons, log in first. If you were the one to upload the file in question, this can help administrators to identify it.

Add the request to the bottom of the page. Click here to open the page where you should add your request. Alternatively, you can click the "edit" link next to the current date below. Watch your request's section for updates.

Closing discussions

In general, discussions should be closed only by administrators.

Archives

Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.

Current requests

File:Nahashogyoseimon.png

こちらの写真は私が撮影・編集したものです。 最初にアップロードした際は著作者の記名を忘れおり、削除されてしまったので再アップロードしました。そのことにつきましては注意等を十分に確認しておらず大変申し訳ありませんでした。 今後はこういうことがないように十分注意します。 この写真は私が撮影・編集したものですので問題はありません。ですのでファイルの復元をお願いします。

This photo was taken and edited by me. When I first uploaded it, I forgot the author's name and it was deleted, so I re-uploaded it. I am very sorry that I did not fully check the instructions. I'll be very careful not to let this happen again. This picture was taken and edited by me, so there is no problem. So please restore the file.

（たいやき部屋 (talk) 07:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)）[reply]

@たいやき部屋: Hi, You were asked to upload the original image with EXIF data. Why can't you do that? Yann (talk) 09:41, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where should I upload my original images?
Can't I use the image edited for personal information protection? たいやき部屋 (talk) 10:13, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I understood what you were saying.
Upload it the appropriate way. たいやき部屋 (talk) 12:54, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Photographs by Pavel Troshkin

Images were published after 2015, expiration of posthumous copyright protection of photographer after death, or before 1954. Overly hypothetical doubts by now-banned user who made many overzealous deletion requests. Kges1901 (talk) 18:16, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose As I noted in the DR, these are either under URAA copyright, as are all Russian images published after 1942, or, if unpublished until recently, are under copyright in Russia. In either case we cannot keep them. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We usually assume that old works were published at the time of creation, unless evidence says otherwise. If I understood correctly, the author was a reporter for RIAN, so I see no reason to assume that these pictures were not published at the time. The first file in the list, File:Сессия Верховного Совета СССР первого созыва (2).jpg, is dated 1938. That may not be sufficient for all images, but it seems OK for this one. Yann (talk) 20:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Troshkin was a reporter for the newspaper Izvestiya, and his photographs were published at the time in Izvestiya, Krasnaya Zvezda, and other papers. --Kges1901 (talk) 20:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Carl Lindberg also made an interesting argument about the country of origin. If these newspapers were distributed in the Soviet Union, they were simultaneously published in all successor nations, and that under the Berne Convention, the shorter term applies. Yann (talk) 20:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These newspapers were distributed across the entire Soviet Union, not just on the territory of the RSFSR. In any case, the definition of publication under Russian copyright law is that the back of the photograph was marked by the artist in the appropriate way, which for war photographs implies that it passed through censorship processes and could be published. Since most of these photographs are not taken from the photographer's negatives, it is reasonable to assume that they were marked on the back, and recently digitized images appeared on the internet after 2014, when the posthumous publication copyright term expired. Kges1901 (talk) 20:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Carl Lindberg is not sole in such assumption. But this is just assumption so far, it is not supported by court decisions (of 12-15 post-Soviet states) or jurisprudential literature (as I have known on today, I continue to seek it, to confirm or refute it). As I see such questions in court decisions (of several post-Soviet states) or jurisprudential literature - the concrete Soviet republic is place of publishing (because, the civil legislation was on republican level) or the RF is place of publishing, even if work was published outside of the RSFSR (as USSR-successor on union level). Alex Spade (talk) 10:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure there is any test case over the Berne definition of "country of origin". The question would not come up internally for Russian law or that of the old republics, most likely. It would only matter in a country outside those which implement the rule of the shorter term, and over a work which that question may be involved. Not sure I know of any, anywhere. But, the Berne Convention is pretty specific in its definition when it comes to works simultaneously published in multiple countries, and that is the definition that Commons follows. Of course, the Soviet Union was not a member, though most all subsequent countries are now. One complication is the U.S. status -- the definition of "source country" for the URAA would follow different logic than Berne, the country of "greatest contacts with the work", which would be Russia. Russia was 50pma on the URAA date, but I think had some wartime extensions, which I think push these over the line, such that only ones published before 1929 (or created before 1904, if unpublished) would be PD in the U.S., regardless of current status in Russia, or the country of origin (if different). Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:09, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know such cases (on the Berne definition) too, but in the Russian copyright legislation there are 3 criterions of copyrightability - (1) the Russian territory (the territory of the Russian Federation (the RSFSR previously, not the USSR) since Nov.7, 1917 to today) in the borders on the date of publication, (2) the Russian citizenship on the date of publication, and (3) international treaties.
Moreover, there is similar situation with reports of telegraph agencies or press-releases- they are reported/released worldwide formally, but the country indicated in report/release is the country of origin (some reports/releases have two of more indicated countries). Alex Spade (talk) 22:12, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right -- the Berne country of origin pretty much never applies to internal works, or even most situations involving foreign works. The specific definition in Berne pretty much only matters if a country is applying the rule of the shorter term for a foreign work to have lesser protection than their own works normally do; the Berne definition would have to be used in that case to determine the country, since that is in the treaty. In pretty much any other situation, more sensical definitions can be used (which even the US did, with the URAA -- the "source country" there is pretty much the same thing, but differs quite a bit once it comes to simultaneous publication). But however nonsensical it seems, Commons uses the Berne definition, since that should control when works expire in many countries (even if that virtually never comes up in a court case to test it). Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:15, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another aspect to consider is how publication is defined. For example, in this academic article about Russian copyright law, it is stated that an author, transferring a work to another by agreement, gives consent to publication, and thus the work can be considered published. This means that if Troshkin transferred his negatives to his employer (Izvestiya), the works would be legally considered published. Since all photos in question are of a professional nature, there is no reason to assume that Troshkin kept any of these photographs in his personal possession and did not transfer them to his employer. Considering this, then all of his photos would have been legally published when he transferred them to his employer, that is, definitely before his death in 1944, and all these photographs would be firmly public domain. Kges1901 (talk) 08:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Term publication (обнародование or опубликование in Russian, and these are two different term in the Russian copyright) is defined in the paragraph one and two of part 1 of article 1268 of the Civil Code. Consent to publication is not publication (right for exercise of some action is not action). And mentioned resent discussion on the Ru-Wiki for orphan works (where I was the main speaker) does not matter for Troshkin's works - author of photos (Troshkin) is known. Alex Spade (talk) 09:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At the same time if there is a source for original of photo and its reverse side, and such original (reverse side) is marked by author name and a year, then this year can be considered as year of publication according to the last paragraph of article 475 of the Soviet Russian Civil Code. Alex Spade (talk) 09:22, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In terms of copyright I am specifically discussing the nuances of обнародование because the term contains a broader meaning than simply опубликование, and the expiration of copyright (if work is posthumously published) is calculated from обнародование and not опубликование of a work – regarding photographs, that public display of a work counts as обнародование while not опубликование in the strict sense, therefore opening broader possibilities for the release of a work during Troshkin's lifetime.
Regarding originals, another aspect is that at least some of Troshkin's photographs were sent into TASS and copyright thus transferred to TASS, falling under PD-Russia under the TASS aspect. For example this photograph was marked on the back with TASS copyright stamp even though Troshkin was an Izvestiya correspondent.
In any case presence of markings on the back is the most hopeful approach to this problem of posthumous copyright since any photograph/negative with a description had to have been marked on the back with a caption and name of the author, since Troshkin's photographs presumably entered into a centralized group of photographs cleared for publication, as his photographs were not just published in Izvestiya, but in Krasnaya Zvezda, Vechernyaya Moskva, other newspapers, and books (for example a large quantity of his photographs taken during the Battle of Khalkhin Gol appeared in this 1940 book without mention of his name. Secondly finding an exact date for negatives such as this example would have been impossible if there was no marking on the back. The fact that exact dates taken are available for negatives indicates that they were also marked in some way with captions, dates and names of author. Examples of such author name and year markings on the back of a Troshkin photograph include [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Kges1901 (talk) 13:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, обнародование is wider than опубликование, but the fact (and the date) of обнародование must be proved (for example for some painting "This painting was created in 1923 and was shown on ZYX-art exhibition in 1925, see reference link").
  • Yes, if photowork is marked by TASS (no matter by TASS only or by TASS+name_of_real_photograph), this photowork is TASS-work. Alex Spade (talk) 14:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Undeletion of individual photographs

Russian department awards

Please, restore deleted Russian department awards and close (as keep) similar current DR. Alex Spade (talk) 09:59, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closed DR discussions

Current DR discussions

Yes, they are not state awards, but they are state symbols ({{PD-RU-exempt}}) indeed - symbols, which are established by state authorities, which design (including both text description and visual representation) are established (which design are integral part of) in respective official documents of state government agencies (the Russian official documents are not just texts), which are subjects of the en:State Heraldic Register of the Russian Federation (point 3 subpoint 4). Alex Spade (talk) 09:59, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Question Any opinion about this? Yann (talk) 18:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two ConventionExtension screenshots

These files was speedily deleted as copyright violations. I was originally going to request undeletion on the basis of them being screenshots of free software (i.e., {{MediaWiki screenshot}}); annoyingly, though, the Git repository of the MediaWiki extension that they're screenshots of doesn't appear to contain a license statement of any kind. However, I noticed that the account that uploaded these files (Chughakshay16) is the same account that developed the extension in the first place (see mw:User:Chughakshay16/ConventionExtension, git:mediawiki/extensions/ConventionExtension/+log) - therefore, even if this extension's code isn't freely licensed, Chughakshay16 would nevertheless have the ability and authority to release screenshots of the results of their own programming under a free license (as they did when they uploaded the files in question to Commons); and these freely-licensed screenshots are therefore not copyvios.

At User talk:Moheen#Screenshot of conference extension deleted?, the deleting admin mentioned that the files were tagged as likely belong[ing] to Cisco Webex; however, I didn't see anything that would indicate that Cisco holds a copyright over this extension's code (or that would prohibit the code's author from being able to freely license screenshots of its results).

All the best, --A smart kitten (talk) 11:11, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Question Any opinion about this? Yann (talk) 18:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:UG-GE Photowalk (March, 2018)

those files deleted as no FoP in Georgia but they are just graffiti. I think that COM:GRAFFITI applies. Template {{Non-free graffiti}} should be added as well. We have a lot's of them in Category:Non-free graffiti. -- Geagea (talk) 13:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Documentation of Template:Non-free graffiti states: "Note that this template doesn't have enough help on the undeletion requests, deleted files are unlikely to be restored just because of the potential application of this tag.". Günther Frager (talk) 18:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
that's not just because the template. The template is only for information. The deletion rational was no FoP in Georgia. But it is not FoP issue. I linked COM:GRAFFITI and we have a lots of files in Category:Non-free graffiti. -- Geagea (talk) 18:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose But Georgia does not have FOP anyway. Also, these are murals by unknown artists, not just text or tags. Thuresson (talk) 18:09, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So graffiti is a FoP case? If FoP in Georgia will be ok than the graffiti also ok? Aren't they in temporarily exhibition by definition. If they just a case of FoP it's not very clear in COM:GRAFFITI. -- Geagea (talk) 20:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For better or worse, we have allowed photos of illegal graffiti by policy regardless of FoP laws -- but we prefer using the FoP tags, or PD tags, if those apply rather than relying on that rationale. If this looks like "legal graffiti", i.e. murals, then we should not allow it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Каракачански носии од Демир-каписко.png

Along with a few others that have been undeleted, this was also taken from my phone... by me Big ooga booga mf (talk) 10:49, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:001 Menschliche männliche Achselbehaarung.jpg

An Bildern menschlicher, männlicher Achselbehaarung dürfte es nichts verwerfliches geben. Auch andere haben dazu Bilder eingestellt. Marc66 (talk) 12:19, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Marc66: Why this photo is in COM:SCOPE?

File:John Tower 1989 Uncropped.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I have searched through the copyright records and there is no record of the creator Wally McNamee ever having put copyright and this photo even if the date is wrong on getty would still be before march 1989 as the tower hearings were concluded in February. KlaudeMan (talk) 15:47, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose During that period, registration was not required -- notice would suffice. Therefore in order for it to be restored, you must show an instance where the image was published without notice before March 1, 1989. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:10, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup after professional wrestling magazine DRs

Refer to Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by User:Sismarinho, which I initiated last year, and Commons:Deletion requests/Professional wrestling magazines, which I initiated in June and was recently closed.

The five-year rule which dominated discussion of the second DR wasn't clear to me at the time of the first DR. The closing admin deleted everything from those publications whose copyrights were registered without regard for the five-year rule, which was never acknowledged. Since I was still in the dark as a result, the second DR wound up being much larger than it needed to be. Anyway, most everything above appears to have been published prior to fall 1987 based on the dates given in the file, but I have no way of knowing for certain as the files were deleted. I'm guessing the Adrian Adonis photos accompanied a story on his death, which means they were published in 1988 and therefore ineligible for undeletion.
I provided further commentary as I did further research following the initial posting, which showed that this particular issue was published in the U.S. and bore a defective copyright notice. The notice said "All rights reserved by Champion Sports Publishing Corp. 1972". This can be verified here. See my earlier comment about the closing admin going through the motions and not giving it a whole lot of thought.
I checked again, and yes, I should have caught that. Undeleted. I wouldn't have deleted that if those were crossed out. Abzeronow (talk) 01:25, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also provided extensive commentary in that DR about the difficulty of determining exact publication dates and how it applies to the 1987 cutoff date for copyright protection. Can we get clarification on that? It's one more thing that I don't believe was given much thought. It would be helpful to the members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling in determining resources available to them for expanding coverage of the topic area. It would also be helpful in correcting the boilerplate text which accompanied the PD templates, which falsely claimed the circumstances under which PD was claimed and resulted in the deletions which did occur. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 19:07, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Ole Anderson file illustrates your point. "Fall 1987". I don't feel comfortable restoring it unless we get more specific info on publication. The Adrian Adonis files were published in the 1988 Annual, so those are copyrighted. Abzeronow (talk) 23:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bmsw-logo-short-rgb-b.jpg

In my opinion the logo of the school was a composition of text and the heraldic symbol of the Kanton of Zurich, which is used in every publication (e.g. https://www.zh.ch/de.html) As I understand it, heraldic symbols of Swiss entities governed by law ("öffentlich-rechtliche Körperschaften") are Public Domain.--Rocky187 (talk) 06:41, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The removal of these files was an error. These images are being used as evidence in a Wikidata discussion to highlight a potential misuse of the platform. As simple screenshots of Wikidata tools, they are directly relevant to a Wikimedia project. The accusation of vandalism is unfounded and the removal of these files is both unfair and hinders constructive discussion within the Wikimedia community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.37.233.37 (talk • contribs) 07:02, 9 September 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Out of scope images by globally locked account. IP blocked for block evasion. Yann (talk) 10:05, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 09:53, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarian Parliament files thread 3

Please keep this open (there are still many files to undelete, and Restore A Lot doesn't work on some pages). Abzeronow (talk) 21:20, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another batch of around 50 tomorrow, please keep open. Abzeronow (talk) 21:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Will undelete another batch of around 50 tomorrow. Abzeronow (talk) 00:18, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:El Salvador 1970.jpg

Image was deleted per COM:NETCOPYVIO despite image being public domain in both Spain and the US due to Spanish photos dated in 1970 already being in the public domain by the time of the 1996 URAA date. SuperSkaterDude45 (discusión) 21:18, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The source of the photo is https://www.facebook.com/Fredycamposs/photos/a.497943645081/10165190704220082/ a fan page about El Salvador. On the source link there is no indication that the country of origin is Spain. Günther Frager (talk) 21:33, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Günther Frager: This is a different scan of the same image. On the bottom half, you can see the Mundo Deportivo logo as part of a collection they were running at the time. The European Spanish spelling for "Mexico" is also used in the caption. SuperSkaterDude45 (discusión) 21:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Anonymous pictures from Spain are protected for 70 years. So this will be until 2041 in Spain. Yann (talk) 21:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann: How come {{PD-Spain-photo}} states that simple photographs usually have copyright term of around 25 years? I doubt that the deleted file is say, an artistic work. SuperSkaterDude45 (discusión) 21:55, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This was certainly taken by a professional photographer. Not a point-and-shoot picture. Is there a definition of "simple photographs"? Yann (talk) 07:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann: From the legal Spanish definition or just an objective one? Because the info on Commons is rather lacking when it comes to specifics in regard to photography and what constitutes as a simple photograph. Plus, nothing can be confirmed regarding the photographer considering that no source has provided a single name from trying to look up other scans of the same image. It was published by a Spanish magazine sure but it's a baseless assumption to assume that the photographer is automatically professional because of the publication. SuperSkaterDude45 (discusión) 17:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Harry Tupan (2024) foto door Sake Elzinga.jpg

please find evidence of cc code on this page: https://drentsmuseum.nl/nieuws/harry-tupan-nieuwe-algemeen-directeur-drents-museum — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesmcbrown (talk • contribs)

 Support The source effectively claims the photographer is Sake Elzinga and it has a CC-BY-SA license. The website is from the Drents Museum so we can trust it. Günther Frager (talk) 14:51, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Support restoration - licensing templates will need a fix. It was deleted due to lack of permissions and being uploaded as an own work. Regards, Aafi (talk) 17:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Marion Boisot

@Yann: Please restore Category:Marion Boisot and File:Marion Boisot (1897-1990) bookplate.jpg and File:Marion Boisot.jpg, the entries have been restored above. "Commons does not overrule other projects about what is in scope." See: File:Marion Boisot (1897-1990) and Byington Ford (1890-1985) engagement in The San Francisco Examiner of San Francisco, California on November 7, 1920.jpg and File:Marion Boisot (1897-1990) engagement photograph in The San Francisco Examiner of San Francisco, California on November 7, 1920.jpg This is part of a campaign against entries for people that are not Wikipedia notable (famous) but meet Wikidata notability. Commons is supposed to respect other projects notability standards. --RAN (talk) 16:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann: Yes, please restore Category:Marion Boisot. It was deleted without discussion. Greg Henderson (talk) 17:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Empty categories don't need a discussion for deletion. If/when a category turns empty, it meets our COM:CSD criteria for deletion. I would oppose the file restoration as well given its deletion per DR. If there are any other files where this category could be used, I'd support restoring it but currently it is blank/empty and cannot be kept. ─ Aafī on Mobile (talk) 18:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category restored. (You can recreate categories without needing an administrator). Abzeronow (talk) 21:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was restored and then deleted again, that is why I came here. The contents were also deleted as speedy to avoid scrutiny. It appears to be part of a harassment campaign that has been brought up at Administrators' noticeboard. --RAN (talk) 21:50, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Marion Boisot.jpg was in use at the time of deletion. --RAN (talk) 22:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It was in use in a Wikidata item the uploader themselves created. We have long talked about this: creating a Wikidata item for using an image you uploaded here on Commons so that they are both in scope in both projects is deceitful, to say the least. Bedivere (talk) 00:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you show me the new "deceitful" rule? The only real rule is Commons:Project scope: "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. ... It should be stressed that Commons does not overrule other projects about what is in scope. If an image is in use on another project (aside from use on talk pages or user pages), that is enough for it to be within scope." What makes this harassment is you are choosing images uploaded by one person. If you did a search and deleted every image upload to Commons in which the uploader also created the Wikidata entry, then it would not be harassment. Can you see the difference? That is why I am lobbying to have your admin rights revoked, you are using those rights to harass individuals. You are coming up with a new "deceitful" rule, then applying it to only one person. --RAN (talk) 00:51, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: category already restored. files not restored per COM:AN. Please take any "harassment" claims where they should be and please keep discussions at one place (the one at AN, that you started, is ongoing...). I don't have the time to go out there and search for users who have done the same thing as you (like Greg Henderson) to prove your point, but supposing I had the time and will to do such a cleanup (much warranted in my opinion) I could tell you would still call it an abuse of power and harassment campaign. I suggest you to evaluate your actions and respond my and other users' concerns at ANU. Thanks. --Bedivere (talk) 04:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closure reverted. There is no basis for this deletion, but worse, you shouldn't close the UDR when you deleted the file, and it is controversial. Yann (talk) 09:50, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lydia Andrei Photo Profil.jpg

The photographer has sent an authorisation to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org to allow it's use on the Wikipedia page called "Lydia Andréï"

--Rmjd3 (talk) 17:44, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rmjd3: the file will be restored by the VRT team after they review and approve the permission. Günther Frager (talk) 18:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not done, will be processed through VRT. Thuresson (talk) 10:22, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pompeya members.jpg

The file File:Pompeya members.jpg I uploaded was deleted.

Could you please explain how should I fill the inforation about this image to prove my rights on it? I am the member of the band, It's me on the photo (at the left side). The photo made by our friend Julia Sakhon. We hire her to make a photo session. We paid her a fee and then she sent us a link to her google drive from where we have downloaded the image. So how should I prove my rights on this image? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vavilonsssss (talk • contribs) 20:04, 10 September 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]

@Vavilonsssss: Unless you have a legal contract with a transfer of the copyright, the copyright holder is Julia Sakhon. Whoever is the copyright holder should submit an explicit permission. You can read COM:VRT for further information. Günther Frager (talk) 20:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:WLMi2023-08th_postcardA6_Ναός_Αγίου_Νικολάου_Αλεξανδρής_Αλέξης.pdf, File:WLMi2023-09th_postcardA6_Giza_Pyramids_Abdelrahmannr.pdf, File:WLMi2023-10th_postcardA6_Dome_Mosque_Azimronnie.pdf

These are three files (PDFs to be printed as postcards) from a series of 10 cards with the top ten winning pictures of Wiki Loves Monuments 2023, you can find the other ones at Category:Wiki Loves Monuments postcards 2023. I am not sure why these were deleted while the others are ok. I assume I mixed up or forgot to mention something on the description pages regarding the source and/or licensing. If you undelete them I will update the descriptions with all information that may be missing. Thank you, Manfred Werner (WMAT) (talk) 21:04, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Manfred Werner (WMAT): the files where tagged by AntiCompositeBot because they lacked a license. Günther Frager (talk) 21:12, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see, must have been a cop/paste error I made when uploading them. As the other files with basically identical descriptions and licensing seem to be alright I would add all information on source, author, license etc. accordingly if they are restored. --Manfred Werner (WMAT) (talk) 21:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:James Burton Gibson - Obituary.jpg and File:James Burton Gibson in Uniform.jpg

I believe this was a 1915 obituary that was public domain in the USA and UK. It appears to have been speedy deleted out without any chance to fix a simple error. The image of someone who died in 1915 in uniform is also public domain in USA and UK. --RAN (talk) 21:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell us where these were published?  Support undeletion so these can get a proper DR if needed. Abzeronow (talk) 21:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo CLEZ (Zulia).jpg

Buenas administradores, por favor restaure el logo del Consejo Legislativo del Estado Zulia porque esta en el Dominio Público (según el último párrafo de la licencia en Venezuela {{PD-VenezuelaGov}}) (sin el escudo será {{PD-textlogo}} osea too simple) (Notas:El Escudo de armas fue creado en 1917 según este link además sin el escudo será un logo simple pero no dice nada del COM:Venezuela pero es solamente de texto) AbchyZa22 22:01, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:World of Australians book.jpg

Copyright owner provided permission for use using the Commons process.--DJB of Melb (talk) 00:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"for use on wikipedia" is not an acceptable copyright license. Thuresson (talk) 07:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:M0uvlju42db9gt85osaorg.webp.normal.webp

Hello. The moderator made a mistake with the indication of the primary source. The image belongs to me. The original source of the image posting is https://taspanews.kz/novosti-kazakhstana/mat-smetova-eldos-s-detstva-risoval-zolotye-medali-v-albome-747571961311/

The moderator indicated a link to the resource, which at our request placed the material on its resource

 Oppose This is pretty clearly a derivative work - even if you were the photographer on the linked website, were you also the photographer of the image in the banner? The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cartaz do filme "Lições de um Salvamento".jpg

As configurações de privacidade do Flickr já foram editadas, de modo que agora a licença de todo o conteúdo é de "Trabalho de Domínio Público". Peço dsculpas e, por gentileza, que restaurem a imagem em questão. Grata. --LaMattos (talk) 06:06, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Deleted per deletion request. "All Rights Reserved" at flickr.com. The Flickr account has the same name as a person who was an actor in this movie; I lack an explanation how the copyright of the movie poster was transferred from the movie distribution company to a Flickr user. Thuresson (talk) 08:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Memoria poster.jpg

✓ Done: @Tanbiruzzaman: FYI. --Yann (talk) 09:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Helena Łazarska.jpg

A proper agreeement hes been sent to VTRS by author. See: ticket:2024091010006655. Polimerek (talk) 09:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: @Polimerek: FYI. --Yann (talk) 09:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests&oldid=840982298"