Commons:Solicitudes de restauración

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 96% 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

En esta página, los usuarios pueden solicitar la restauración de una página o un archivo borrado. Los usuarios pueden comentar sobre las solicitudes dejando marcas como manténgase borrado o restaurar junto con su razonamiento.

Esta página no es parte de Wikipedia. Esta página es sobre el contenido de Wikimedia Commons, un repositorio de archivos multimedia libres usados por Wikipedia y otros proyectos Wikimedia. Wikimedia Commons no almacena artículos de enciclopedia. Para solicitar la restauración de un artículo u otro contenido que haya sido borrado de la edición de Wikipedia en inglés, véase la página deletion review en ese proyecto.

Encontrando porqué fue borrado un archivo

Primero, revisa el registro de borrados y encuentra porqué el archivo fue eliminado. Utiliza también la herramienta Lo que enlaza aquí para ver si existe alguna discusión enlazando hacia el archivo borrado. Si tú subiste el archivo, ve si hay algún mensaje en tu página de discusión explicando el motivo del borrado. Segundo, lee por favor la política de borrado, la política de alcance del proyecto, y la política de licencias para averiguar porqué el archivo no puede ser permitido en Commons.

Si la razón dada no es clara o si estás en desacuerdo con ella, puedes contactar al administrador que la borró para preguntarle o para explicarle o darle nueva evidencia en contra de la razón para el borrado. Puedes contactar también a cualquier otro administrador activo (quizá uno que hable tu idioma nativo); la mayoría estará dispuesto a ayudar, y si se ha cometido un error, podrá rectificar la situación.

Apelando un borrado

Los borrados que son correctos basados en las políticas actuales de borrado, alcance del proyecto y de licencias no serán deshechos. Las propuestas para cambiar las políticas deben ser hechas en sus páginas de discusión.

Si crees que el archivo en cuestión no fue ni una violación de derechos de autor ni está fuera del alcance del proyecto:

  • Puedes querer discutirlo con el administrador que borró el archivo. Puedes pedirle al administrador una explicación más detallada o mostrar evidencia para apoyar la restauración.
  • Si no deseas contactar a nadie directamente, o si un administrador individual ha declinado la restauración, o si quieres una oportunidad de que más personas participen en la discusión, puedes solicitar la restauración en esta página.
  • Si el archivo fue borrado no haber evidencia de permiso del dueño de los derechos, por favor sigue el procedimiento para enviar evidencia del permiso. Si ya has hecho eso, no hay necesidad de solicitar la restauración aquí. Si el permiso enviado está en orden, el archivo será restaurado cuando el permiso sea procesado. Por favor sé paciente, ya que esto puede tomar varias semanas dependiendo de la carga de trabajo actual y los voluntarios disponibles.
  • Si faltara alguna información en la descripción de la imagen eliminada, es posible que se le hagan algunas preguntas. En general, se espera que dichas preguntas sean respondidas en las siguientes 24 horas.

Restauración temporal

Los archivos pueden ser temporalmente restaurados ya sea para asistencia en una discusión de restauración para ese archivo o para permitir la transferencia a un proyecto que permita el fair use. Usa la plantilla {{Request temporary undeletion}} en la solicitud de restauración en cuestión, y provee una explicación.

  1. Si la restauración temporal es para ayudar en una discusión, explica porqué sería útil para la discusión el restaurar temporalmente el archivo, o
  2. Si la restauración temporal para permitir la transferencia a un proyecto que admita el fair use, indica a cuál proyecto tienes intención de transferir el archivo y enlaza a la declaración sobre el fair use del proyecto.

Para ayudar en una discusión

Los archivos pueden ser restaurados temporalmente para ayudar en una discusión si es difícil para los usuarios decidir sobre si una solicitud de restauración debería ser concedida sin tener acceso al archivo.En donde sea suficiente una descripción del archivo o cita de la página de descripción del archivo, un administrador puede proveer esto en vez de conceder la solicitud temporal de restauración. Las solicitudes pueden ser rechazadas si se cree que la utilidad para la discusión es sobrepasada por otros factores (tales como el restaurar, incluso temporalmente, archivos en donde hay preocupaciones sustanciales en relación a fotografías de personas identificables).

Para permitir la transferencia de contenido bajo fair use hacia otros proyectos

A diferencia de la Wikipedia en inglés y unos otros pocos proyectos Wikimedia, Commons no acepta contenido no libre con referencia a disposiciones fair use. Si un archivo borrado alcanza los requerimientos para el fair use de otro proyecto Wikimedia, los usuarios pueden solicitar la restauración temporal para transferir el archivo a ese proyecto. Estas solicitudes pueden usualmente ser manejadas rápidamente (sin discusión). Los archivos temporalmente restaurados para propósitos de transferencia serán borrados nuevamente después de dos días. Cuando solicites una restauración temporal, por favor indica a cuál proyecto pretendes transferir el archivo y enlaza a la declaración sobre fair use del proyecto.

Proyectos que aceptan fair use
* Wikipedia: alsarbarbnbebe-taraskcaeleneteofafifrfrrhehrhyidisitjalbltlvmkmsptroruslsrthtrttukvizh+/−

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.

Añadir una solicitud

Primero, asegúrate de que has intentado encontrar porqué fue borrado el archivo. Luego, lee por favor estas instrucciones sobre cómo escribir la solicitud antes de proceder a añadirla:

  • No solicite la restauración de un archivo que no ha sido eliminado.
  • No publique correos electrónicos o números de teléfono para usted o para otros.
  • En el campo de Subject:, ingresa un tema apropiado. Si estás solicitando la restauración de un único archivo, es aconsejable un encabezado como [[:File:ArchivoBorrado.jpg]]. (Nota los dos puntos al inicio en el enlace.)
  • Identifica el (los) archivo(s) para los cuales estás solicitando su restauración y provee enlaces a las imágenes (véase más arriba). Si no sabes el nombre exacto, proporciona tanta información como puedas. Las solicitudes que no provean suficiente información sobre qué es lo que debe ser restaurado, podrán ser archivadas sin previo aviso.
  • Indica la(s) razón(es) para la solicitud de restauración.
  • Firma tu petición usando cuatro tildes (~~~~). Si tienes una cuenta en Commons, inicia primero tu sesión. Si tú fuiste quien subió el archivo en cuestión, esto puede ayudar a los administradores a identificarlo.

Añade la petición al final de la página. Haz clic aquí para abrir la página donde puedes agregar tu solicitud. De manera alternativa, puedes hacer clic en el enlace que dice "edit" (editar) junto a la fecha actual más abajo.

Closing discussions

In general, discussions should be closed only by administrators.

Archivos

Los debates de restauración cerrados son archivados diariamente.

Solicitudes actuales

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

[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]

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]