Commons:Undeletion requests/cy

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page is a translated version of a page Commons:Undeletion requests and the translation is 8% complete. Changes to the translation template, respectively the source language can be submitted through Commons:Undeletion requests and have to be approved by a translation administrator.

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 • 1 subpage) • 0 malformed
26 copyvios • 24 duplicates • 10 adverts • 70 selfies • 16 others
v • d • e

Darganfod pam y dilewyd ffeil

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.

Apelio yn erbyn dilead

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.

Ychwanegu cais

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.

Archifdy

Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.

Current requests

File:Aurich, Lambertikirche (19).jpg, File:Aurich, Lambertikirche (18).jpg, File:Aurich, Lambertikirche (16) 2.jpg

No protected 1960 interior as krd errorously tells. Photographer is the organ builder himself, iirc. Discussion: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Pipe organ of Lambertikirche Aurich --Subbass1 (talk) 17:26, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The DR Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Pipe organ of Lambertikirche Aurich was closed on the statement that the pipe organ is protected. The architecture seemed to not be an issue. Abzeronow (talk) 17:49, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote: Photographer is the organ builder himself, iirc. Besides that on commons an organ case is never protected and is shown thousands of times. --Subbass1 (talk) 17:52, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As noted in the DR, the problem here is not the organ itself, but the church architecture, which is modern and likely copyrighted.  Oppose unless we have a free license permission from the architect also or an evidence that the church architect died more than 70 years ago.
If the images are cropped / altered to show the organ only and the church architecture in the background / surroundings is not shown at all or minimized, the photos may be OK. Ankry (talk) 11:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The church architecture is not "modern". Try reading the german Wikipedia article. --Subbass1 (talk) 11:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK. It is from 1830s, I withdraw my comment. Ankry (talk) 16:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose I think Abzeronow has it right -- perhaps User:Ankry should read the DR again. The problem here is that the design of the organ case goes way beyond utilitarian and therefore has its own copyright. If, as claimed above, the organ builder actually took the pictures, then a note to VRT from an address at https://www.orgelbau-ahrend.de/ should be easy to get (The other named builder, Gerhard Brunzema, died in 1992). .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The VRT team of course already has a permission from Hendrik AHrend for the pictures. For the organ case itself it's not necessary (but here included..), in common use on Commons. --Subbass1 (talk) 13:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per the DR, we have the photographer's permission per ticket:2023120810006959. If that photographer and the organ builder is one and the same person (which I did not know until User:Subbass1 wrote it here, and which was not mentioned in either the previous undeletion request or the deletion request), that ticket should be re-evaluated to see if the permission also covers the organ itself. Else a new permission which explicitly covers both the photographs and the organ design should be sent. --Rosenzweig τ 14:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again: it's NOT necessary to have a permission for organ cases on commons. Just keep doing so to scare away the last people who provide pictures. In this case, unfortunately, even the "superintendent" had to deal with the claim of a "modern church design". Ridiculous. --Subbass1 (talk) 14:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand correctly the situation, these photos of the organ are offered under a free license by the copyright owner of both the organ and the photos. Therefore, there is no problem of copyright violation with these photos. These photos of the organ are fine and free to use and have all the permissions necessary. The organ itself does not need to be offered under a free license. There is no need to force the organ builder to allow his competitors to build identical organs. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support As discussed in the first round at Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2024-04#Aurich, the only goal of sending these files to a deletion request was to clarify the status of the church architecture, and on that point the closing administrator of that DR agreed that the church architecture is not a problem. The VRT permission 2023120810006959 from Hendrik Ahrend for the photos of the organ was not disputed. The organ is attributed to the organ building business [1]. It was built when the father of Hendrik owned the business. Hendrik Ahrend is now the owner of the business. (Hendrik himself also worked on the organ in 2022/2023.) He free licenses his photos of the organ. That's sufficient. We don't need to require that he sends another email to spell out that as the owner of the business he's giving the permission to himself to show the organ in his own photos, nor that his 94 year old father send an email as former owner. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    never ever Ahrend has to prove anything further. I don't wish that he is contacted from hee again, ok? Instead some persons here should overthink their behaviour (and knowledge) and inform themsleves better before making others lots of unnecessary work. --Subbass1 (talk) 17:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chicago Portage National Historic Site.png

This file was deleted by billinghurst on 8 July, based on suspected “CopyVio” flagged by user Enyavar on 14 May.

This file is a map that is a part of the Chicago Portage article and shows how the course of the Des Plaines river has changed since the time that native Americans and others had used the portage. The image shows an aerial photo of the current geography of the Portage site as it looks today with an overlay that shows what the river looked like originally before it was straightened by the Corps of Engineers.  It is therefore within the scope of Wikimedia as per com:project scope. It is also not covered by copyright. The source of the underlying aerial photo is the United States Geological Survey. I did the overlay and it is based on a map that was part of study published by the Chicago Historical Society in 1928 and is therefore in the public domain. When I uploaded the finished image to Wikimedia, I showed “source” as “own work”, meaning that I had done the overlay. User Enyavar flagged the image for deletion on 14 May saying “Satellite maps cannot be ‘own work’”. Of course, he is correct. So, my mistake. I propose that the image be re-instated with “source” showed as “United States Geological Survey for the underlying aerial photo plus my own work for the overlay based on Knight, Robert; Zeuch, Lucius Henry (1928). The Location of the Chicago Portage Route of the Seventeenth Century. Chicago Historical Society.” Let me know what else I might do to get this image un-deleted. Thanks for your help. Joe Bfsplk (talk) 19:41, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ŝmurlo.jpg

The file is needed, in d:Q2356083 and at least in the Esperanto branch of Wikipedia, possibly in all 5 articles about him (Владимир Шмурло/Vladimir Szmurlo, 1865-1931). The person in question died in 1931 and was photographed clearly before, so the chances of the file to be PD are high. Anyway, the reason to delete the file were "no indication of early enough PUBLICATION to be PD". So the source of publication was not exactly enough indicated. That was certainly true, but there is no way anymore of knowing who was the uploader, what was indicated in the upload or when the upload took place. I would like to ask to temporarily undelete the file, for two, better four weeks, to send a personal information about the undeletion at lesat to me, one of three bureaucrats of the Esperanto Wikipedia - no problem if the note is adressed to all three bureaucrats of the Esperanto Wikipedia, and to let us check the file. --ThomasPusch (talk) 20:27, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nahashogyoseimon.png

I took this picture and posted it with personal information hidden. Also, the location where it was filmed is open to everyone. So I would like you to restore the image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by たいやき部屋 (talk • contribs) 10:14, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@たいやき部屋: Please, either upload the image version with EXIF metadata of follow instructions at VRT. Modern images without metadata are no longer accepted as {{Own}}. Ankry (talk) 00:54, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is news to me. Contemporary images require EXIF data now? Where was this discussed? Why has such a consequential requirement not been added to COM:L? Эlcobbola talk 14:31, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a requirement, but I would require EXIF data for small images of new users, images of personalities, and images uploaded by users with a bad history. Yann (talk) 18:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:IM3A7628-Enhanced-NR.jpg

Please revisit the speedy deletion of File:IM3A7628-Enhanced-NR.jpg based on my comment on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Novak Djokovic Paris 2024 Olympic Games.jpg. Thanks! Cryptic-waveform (talk) 14:01, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:RedStarNewspaper56.jpg

Photographer Yefim Kopyt worked for TASS when the photo was taken. This interview given by Kopyt confirms he worked for TASS the entire war, and in Soviet newspapers all of his photos appeared with the byline (TASS) after his name, demonstrating that his photographs are property of TASS, therefore this file is actually public domain under {{PD-Russia}}. --Kges1901 (talk) 13:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by CAMILO BARROSO TELES

These were deleted as "personal family photos". They are images donated by the family of Flávio Terceiro Teles (1921-2015) the Mayor of Tianguá, Brazil. If he was mayor of a location in the United States, there would be no doubt they would not have been deleted. This is another example of selection bias. We have entries and images centered on USA people. Commons is not supposed delete when the images are of interest to projects like Wikidata. "It should be stressed that Commons does not overrule other projects about what is in scope." --RAN (talk) 16:24, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): While photos of a public person are in scope, photos of his family are not. Unless used in Wikimedia. Moreover, we have problem with COM:EVID here: (1) it is unlikely that the photos were made in July 2024 as claimed and (2) only original photos from a digital camera with complete camera info can be accepted as Own work. These are photos of photo prints; we need an evidence that the uploader is the original photographer as he claims and a written free license permission from the copyright holder (who is either the photographer or the person who has a copyright transfer contract with the photographer). Both can be provided using VRT after the scope issues are resolved. Ankry (talk) 02:18, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ipomea batatas, Fungus, Monilachaetes infuscans, Gerald Holmes.jpg

Ich habe verschiedene Fotos (ähnlich wie das obige) von www.ipmimages.org "Vegetables" (insbesondere auch von dem Autorː Gerald Holmes) in Wikimedia Commons eingestellt. Soweit ich die Linzenz Vorgaben in https://www.ipmimages.org/about/imageusage.cfm verstanden habe, ist das erlaubt. Bereits vor meiner Aktivität haben schon andere Personen, Bilder von impomages.org eingestellt. Ich vermute, dass ich als Anfänger was falsch gemacht habe. Können Sie das bitte noch einmal überprüfen? Für den Bereich Landwirtschaft und Gartenbau wäre es eine sehr tolle Angebotserweiterung in WIKIMEDIA COMMONS, wenn wir die Fotos einstellen könnten. Gerade der Bereich Pflanzenschutz ist ja noch sehr unterrepräsentiert. Meine 179 persönlichen Pflanzenschutz Fotos, die ich bisher eingestellt habe, können nur als Ergänzung dienen. Schlaghecken Josef --Schlaghecken Josef (talk) 20:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose We need a permission for a free license from the copyright holder. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure. Yann (talk) 18:08, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: The file will be undeleted if and when the permission is validated through COM:VRT. --Yann (talk) 18:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Oshala.jpg

Owner of the work Oshala Hearth has approved me for the publication of the image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎CitizenLK (talk • contribs) 16:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

@CitizenLK: Please ask the copyright holder, who is usually the photographer, and not the subject, to send a permission via COM:VRT. Yann (talk) 16:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Already have CitizenLK (talk) 17:04, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: The file will be undeleted if and when the permission is validated through COM:VRT. --Yann (talk) 18:35, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Giuse Nguyễn Năng 5.jpg

Hình ảnh miễn phí không yêu cầu bản quyền của Giáo phận Phát Diệm --Tuan.js (talk) 17:07, 10 August 2024 (UTC)tuan 11/08/2024[reply]

 Oppose We need a permission for a free license from the copyright holder. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure. Yann (talk) 18:06, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: The file will be undeleted if and when the permission is validated through COM:VRT. --Yann (talk) 18:35, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images of Stadio Porta Elisa

Hi everyone, I'm writing here in order to ask for the undeletion of the following images:

They were all deleted in 2013 after this DR, and they all depict the en:Stadio Porta Elisa, the stadium of en:Lucca. The stadium was designed by the engineer en:Enrico Bianchini and the architect en:Raffaello Fagnoni and it was commissioned by the municipality of Lucca (see [2]). It was built in 1935, and therefore it fell under Template:PD-ItalyGov in 1956 (and of course no problem with US copyright). The two stands behind the goals (sorry, I don't know the english terminology) were built at the end of the 1990's (see here, p. 78), but from what I could see from other photos, they seem under the high italian ToO to me...--Friniate (talk) 17:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Banjo_player_Bill_Keith_in_France_festival_de_Courville_sur_Eure_1977_with_Bill_Amatneek.jpg

Bonjour,

Le 2 Jul 2024, j'ai envoyé le message ci dessous suite à un "Avertissement de suppression de fichier(s) multimédia(s)" de Gbawden

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DPhan54 Ma demande de permission a bien été prise en compte pour les 4 premiers fichiers, mais pas pour le cinquième, qui fait l'objet de cette demande de restauration: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Banjo_player_Bill_Keith_in_France_festival_de_Courville_sur_Eure_1977_with_Bill_Amatneek.jpg

Suite a quoi ce fichier a été suspendu le 02/08/2024 au motif: "No ticket permission since 2 July 2024"

Et la reference à ce fichier dans wikipedia a été supprimée pour: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Keith

J'ai donc réitère ce jour ma demande à "permissions-fr@wikimedia.org" pour ce seul fichier ci dessous, que je souhaiterais voir restaurer

Bien cordialement Denis Phan DPhan54

copies de mail

Sujet : Release of Banjo player Bill Keith in France festival de Courville sur Eure 1977 with Bill Amatneek.jpg Date : Sun, 11 Aug 2024 11:28:43 +0200 De : Denis PHAN (info) <info@denisphan.fr> Pour : permissions-fr@wikimedia.org


Je , Denis Phan, confirme par la présente être l'auteur et le titulaire unique et exclusif de l'œuvre du fichier suivant: File:Banjo_player_Bill_Keith_in_France_festival_de_Courville_sur_Eure_1977_with_Bill_Amatneek.jpg J'accepte de publier les œuvres mentionnées ci-dessus sous Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International. Je comprends qu'en faisant cela je permets à quiconque d'utiliser mon œuvre dans un but commercial, et de la modifier dans la mesure des exigences imposées par la licence. Je suis conscient(e) de toujours jouir des droits extra-patrimoniaux sur mon œuvre, et garder le droit d'être cité(e) pour celle-ci selon les termes de la licence retenue. Les modifications que d'autres pourront faire ne me seront pas attribuées. Je suis conscient(e) qu'une licence libre concerne seulement les droits patrimoniaux de l'auteur, et je garde la capacité d'agir envers quiconque n'emploierait pas ce travail d'une manière autorisée, ou dans la violation des droits de la personne, des restrictions de marque déposée, etc. Je comprends que je ne peux pas retirer cette licence, et que l'image est susceptible d'être conservée de manière permanente par n'importe quel projet de la fondation Wikimedia.

Denis Phan 2024-08-11

https://www.discogs.com/artist/1935694-Denis-Phan

[généré avec relgen.js]


Message transféré --------

Sujet : elease of Kenny Kosek-Courville-sur-Eure-FolkFestival-1978.jpg, Kenny Kosek-Festival Courville-sur-Eure1978.jpg, Tony Rice-Courville-sur-Eure-Folk Festival1977.jpg, Bill Keith-David Grisman-Tony Rice-Courville-sur-Eure-Folk Festival-1977.jpg and Banjo player Bill Keith in France festival de Courville sur Eure 1977 with Bill Amatneek.jpg Date : Tue, 2 Jul 2024 16:07:43 +0200 De : dPhan <denisphan@orange.fr> Pour : permissions-fr@wikimedia.org Copie à : info@denisphan.fr


Je , Denis Phan, confirme par la présente être l'auteur et le titulaire unique et exclusif de l'œuvre les fichiers suivants:

J'accepte de publier les œuvres mentionnées ci-dessus sous Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International. Je comprends qu'en faisant cela je permets à quiconque d'utiliser mon œuvre dans un but commercial, et de la modifier dans la mesure des exigences imposées par la licence. Je suis conscient(e) de toujours jouir des droits extra-patrimoniaux sur mon œuvre, et garder le droit d'être cité(e) pour celle-ci selon les termes de la licence retenue. Les modifications que d'autres pourront faire ne me seront pas attribuées. Je suis conscient(e) qu'une licence libre concerne seulement les droits patrimoniaux de l'auteur, et je garde la capacité d'agir envers quiconque n'emploierait pas ce travail d'une manière autorisée, ou dans la violation des droits de la personne, des restrictions de marque déposée, etc. Je comprends que je ne peux pas retirer cette licence, et que l'image est susceptible d'être conservée de manière permanente par n'importe quel projet de la fondation Wikimedia.

Denis Phan 2024-07-02

https://www.discogs.com/artist/1935694-Denis-Phan

[généré avec relgen.js]

File:Şadırvan, Sayı 1 - Kapak.jpg

[EN] I've created this file depicting the cover page of the "Şadırvan magazine, first issue" using my own copy with my own scanner. I've uploaded this file to be used in the Turkish page of the aforementioned "Şadırvan" magazie. It's been marked as "F1 - Clear Copyright Violation" by the user: "Kadı". What is my mistake here? I'm using the image I personally take using the copy of the magazine I own with the equipment I own.

[TR] Bu dosyayı kendi elimdeki Şadırvan dergisi, 1.sayı'dan kendi tarayıcımla oluşturdum. Görseli'de Şadırvan dergisinin kendi Wikipedia sayfasında kullanmak amacıyla yüklemiştim. "F1 - Clear Copyright Violation" sebebi belirtilmiş, neden acaba böyle bir sebep belirttiniz? Kendi dergimde, kendim çektiğim bir fotoğrafı kullanmaktayım. Acaba dosya telif kurallarında bir bilgiyi mi yanlış, eksik girdim? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwydion The Quick (talk • contribs) 10:31, 11 August 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The uploader owns a copy of the magazine, but they are clearly not the copyright holder. @Gwydion The Quick: you don't own the copyright of the magazine. Taking a photo or scanning it is a derivative work, and Commons doesn't allow derivative works of copyrighted objects. Günther Frager (talk) 10:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Christos S. Bartsocas.jpg

I was surprised that my photo was deleted at:

File:Christos S. Bartsocas.jpg

as of August 10, 2024, by Túrelio. I am the sole owner of this photo obtained at a meeting in Corfu, about 10 years ago. As the Cyprus Alliance for Rare Disorders requested a photo of mine for their records, I sent them this widely used photo.

Please reinstate the photo in File:Christos S. Bartsocas.jpg in Wikipedia Commons. --Bartsocas (talk) 18:26, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files deleted of Logos of the Municipality in Venezuela

Buenas, administradores por favor restaure las imágenes:

✓ Done: Both restored. @AbchyZa22: please update the licensing accordingly. --Bedivere (talk) 01:35, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/cy&oldid=756610885"