Commons:Visszaállítási kérések

(Redirected from Commons:Visszaállítási kérések)
This page is a translated version of a page Commons:Undeletion requests and the translation is 42% 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.

Shortcut: COM:UNDEL · COM:UR · COM:UD · COM:DRV

Other languages:
العربية • ‎Cymraeg • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎español • ‎français • ‎magyar • ‎日本語 • ‎Ripoarisch • ‎polski • ‎پښتو • ‎português • ‎русский • ‎svenska • ‎中文

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.

Törlés (Törlési irányelvek)


Finding out why a file was deleted

Először is nézd meg a törlési naplót, hogy miért törölték a fájlt. Ha a Commonson a képhez találsz egy piros linket, és arra kattintasz, akkor megnyílik egy szerkesztési ablak, de a baloldali navigációs menü Mi hivatkozik erre pontjából utánajárhatsz, hogy hol említették meg a fájlt (például egy törlési vitában). Másodsorban pedig olvasd el a Commons feltételeit, a licencfeltételeket és a törlési irányelveket.

Ha a törlésre adott indoklás nem érthető, vagy ha nem értesz vele egyet, akkor felveheted a kapcsolatot a képet törlő adminisztrátorral. Magyarázatot kérhetsz tõle vagy akár új bizonyítékot is benyújthatsz be a törlés indoka ellen. Felveheted továbbá a kapcsolatot egy másik adminisztrátorral is – a magyarul beszélő adminisztrátorok ebben a listában vannak. Ha a törlés hibás volt, akkor a fájlt visszaállítják.

Fellebbezés

Ha a törlés a jelenlegi Commons feltételek és licencfeltételek szerint indokolt volt, akkor az adott feltétel vitalapján emelhetsz panaszt a feltétel ellen.

Ha úgy gondolod, hogy a kép nem sértette a szerzői jogokat és a Commons feltételeinek is megfelel:

  • Először a vitát lezáró adminnal lenne érdemes kapcsolatba lépni. Megkérheted, hogy a bővebben fejtse ki az indoklását, vagy hogy mutasson be bizonyítékokat.
  • Ha nem szeretnél senkivel se közvetlenül kapcsolatba lépni, vagy ha egy adminisztrátor megtagadta a visszaállítást, esetleg több embert szeretnél bevonni a vitába, akkor a lentiek szerint ezen az oldalon kérvényezheted a visszaállítást.
  • 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.

Átmeneti visszaállítás 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

A fair use elvet engedélyező projektek felhasználói kérvényezhetnek egy két napos átmeneti visszaállítást, hogy a letörölt fájlt átvihessék a saját projektjükbe. A szerkesztőnek meg kell mondania, hogy melyik projektbe szeretné a fájlt átvinni, és be kell linkelni az adott projekt fair use állásfoglalását. A magyar Wikipédia nem fogad be fair use fájlokat. 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.

Új kérés beadása

Kattints ide, és megnyílik az az oldal, ahova a visszaállítási kérésedet írhatod be. Ugyanezt kézzel is megcsinálhatod, ha a mai dátum melletti "szerkesztés" hivatkozásra bököl. A kérésedet a lap aljára írd be, és ne feledkezz meg az alábbiakról:

  • A Subject: mezőbe írj be egy megfelelő témát. Ha csak egyetlen egy fájl visszaállítását kéred, akkor melegen ajánlott az [[:Image:TöröltFájl.jpg]]. (Ne feledkezz meg az első kettőspontról, az hivatkozik a képre.)
  • Sorold fel a fájlt vagy fájlokat amire a visszaállítási kérésed vonatkozik, és mindegyik képhez adj meg egy hivatkozást (lásd feljebb). Ha nem emlékszel a fájl nevére, akkor a lehető legtöbb mindent adj meg. Ha egy kérésből nem derül ki, hogy mit is kellene visszaállítani, akkor az a kérés nagyon hamar archiválásra kerülhet.
  • Sorold fel indokaidat a visszaállításra.
  • Írd alá a kérésedet négy hullámvonallal(~~~~). Ha a Commonsban van felhasználói fiókod, akkor jelentkezz be. Ha te töltötted fel a képet, akkor így az adminok sokkal hamarabb megtalálják.

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.

Archives

Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.


Nyitott visszaállítási kérések

Watch Edit

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Mandovi1

I Mondivi1 took photos and created those art work. The administrator who deleted my files lacked professional care and due diligence and deleted my file . I wrote to the administrator never received a reply. In fact only comments on the discussion was her comments which she could not justify. I travel thousand of miles to take picture and create art work. This act of deletion without just cause is unfair and unjust

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandovi1 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 25 November 2016‎ (UTC)

  • As a courtesy to other editors, it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on talk pages, deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and the date will then automatically be added along with a timestamp when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

  Oppose

  • File:Our Lady of Miracles Jaffna. The Church Bell 1648 -1658.jpg is the same image as File:THE CHURCH BELL .jpg. The latter image is much better. It has the bell in context, rather than with the background crudely whited out. Therefore I see no reason to restore the deleted file.
  • File:Our Lady of Miracles Jaffna Patnam. Ceilão Português.jpg is an image of a sculpture wtih a background map. In order for this to be restored, both the sculpture and the map must be proven to be PD.
  • The last two are PDF files. We do not keep PDFs of images.

As for "I wrote to the administrator never received a reply", I see no communication on the talk pages of Ellin or Jcb, the only two editors involved in the DR. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:46, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Although I agree that the bell with context is better I think there's no issue in having a second version without. Maybe Mandovi1 can you tell us why you prefer the collages over the just the plain images and how you see them being used (on Wikimedia project)? Do you have any information on who created the statue and when and the same for the map? Basvb (talk) 22:19, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
The statue seems to be created around 1614: see w:Statue of Our Lady of Miracles, Jaffna patao. Basvb (talk) 22:21, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

My request

I didn't see there was this request and wrote down the following, lets put it here as a sidestep and discuss under the main topic:

I hereby request the undeletion of File:Our Lady of Miracles Jaffna. The Church Bell 1648 -1658.jpg and potentially that of the other files deleted in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Mandovi1.

The bell is clearly cropped from File:THE CHURCH BELL .jpg, for which everything seems to point to a regular own work upload. As such I do not understand why this was deleted and request it to be undeleted.

Except for File:File Size 2.pdf as it seems redundant as duplicate I want to request undeletion of the other files as well. The components of those can be found in File:Our Lady of Miracles Jaffna 003.jpg and File:The Moon of July 13 2014 Toronto Canada.jpg. Thus all components of File:Our Lady of Miracles Jaffna . Easter Morning 1622.pdf are also own work.

File:Our Lady of Miracles Jaffna Patnam. Ceilão Português.jpg the map is obviously not own work, but very likely PD, maybe the user can help us in asserting the proper source information there.

Greetings, Basvb (talk) 22:01, 25 November 2016 (UTC)


Dear Bas

Thanks so much for being kind to review in detail my concern and recommending my artwork be listed again in the Wiki Commons.

In regard to your comments on " File:Our Lady of Miracles Jaffna Patnam. Ceilão Português.jpg " I have enclosed the following information and images.On Oct 4, 2016, I overlapped (merged) the photograph image of statue on the icon image of Jaffna Town to create the File: Our Lady of Miracles Jaffna Patnam. Ceilão Português.jpg. I received the icon image from AHU ,Portugal ( Arquivo Historico Ultramarino / Overseas historic Archives). I have emailed the all three images to prove the above work is my creative work .Please refer to Ticket#2016112510018536. to see those these images. Hope this help to prove the above file is my creative work. Thanking you again for your kind help in recommending to install my other delete file as well. Mandovi1

First, as noted above, you must sign your posts.
Second, also as noted above, we do not keep PDFs of images.
Third, "I received the icon image from AHU ,Portugal ( Arquivo Historico Ultramarino / Overseas historic Archives)." That means that in order for the image to be restored, the copyright owner of the icon image must provide a free license using the procedure at OTRS.
Fourth, you claim that the map is your own work -- I doubt that very much. You must prove that it is PD or freely licensed.
Fifth, the combination of the map and the sculpture is, as you say, "creative work". We do not generally keep that sort of creative combination unless it is very clear that there is an educational advantage in doing so.
Finally, your OTRS e-mail (addressed to Jimmy Wales) complains at length about the fact that "I spend time responding my comments into her comment box and provided more detail regarding my work into each of my art work. I never received any response from her." As I said above, as far as I can see, you made no actual attempt to communicate with Ellin Beltz on her talk page.
While I do not oppose restoring the second version of the bell image since Basvb thinks it would be good to do so, the other jpg has three problems named above and policy prohibits restoring the two PDFs. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:53, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Greetings Jameslwoodward, Basvb and Mandovi1: Please note that the two files which were uploaded after the Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Mandovi1 19 November request,
At the time the deletion nomination was placed, those two images were unavailable for comparison - all that was available were the cut-outs and composites. I think it would be best to keep the full bell and the full statue, but please add the name of "THE CHURCH". The descriptions and titles are what are searched, so please include all information you have about the bell and the statue in the description field. Also, please add a good category for both of these images to improve their educational value. Adding the actual geo-location to the images via http://tools.freeside.sk/geolocator/geolocator.html would add even more value and make it more likely that your images would be used by others - which is after all the point. Commons is not Facebook, we're not here to have it "our way", but to contribute to a global learning endeavor. If a copy of the map with no additional imagery attached were to be uploaded, with a statement as to how old it is and where it came from and why it is PD - at that point, all the base imagery would be uploaded and all problems solved. Off topic but mentioned above, I did receive an email from Mr. Mandovi forwarded through the automatic system, but it was addressed to Jimmy Wales and was a series of complaints which had no COM:AGF - as above. I was not the addressee and did not reply to it. I never received any messages from Mr. Mandovi on my talk page. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:47, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  • On OTRS I got information regarding the map: It is a 1726 map, thus clearly PD. Basvb (talk) 21:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Mexican football soccer logos

I found the following files:

tagged for Speedy, but, as football soccer clubs from Mexico (as "recognized organizations" from Mexico), I tagged them with {{PD-Coa-Mexico}}. However, them has been deleted as Fair use, where clearly does not apply. --Amitie 10g (talk) 00:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Which is the copyright status in the United States? Thuresson (talk) 11:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Does this matter? These logos are from Mexico, and as the football soccer clubs are considered as "recognized organizations", these logos are ineligible for copyright in Mexico. It was already discussed in the Village Pump. --Amitie 10g (talk) 00:56, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
I did not ask about the copyright status in Mexico, thank you. Thuresson (talk) 15:36, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Above is the answer: The Copyright Law of the United States has nothing to do with the logos of "recognized organizations" from Mexico. As them are in the PD in Mexico according to the Mexican Copyright Law, then, them are also in the PD in the U.S (Threshold of originality in the U.S. apply only to logos of organizations from the U.S.). --Amitie 10g (talk) 12:55, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Could you remind me of the discussion where it was decided that football clubs were "recognized" organizations. I seem to remember thinking that it meant something like "governmental", but if the community thought it meant football clubs, I'd like to be reminded of the rationale. Storkk (talk) 12:59, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

  Not done : The wording in the law is "emblemas de organizaciones internacionales gubernamentales, no gubernamentales, o de cualquier otra organización reconocida oficialmente". I think this list hints at organizations that are more than "just" a sports club, unless someone with actualy knowledge of Mexican law comes forward. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:17, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Reopened, considering that there is already DRs of mexican sports clubs resolved as Kept. There is concensus already, and admins shouldn'ty take different actions for the same subject; if you really believe that the sports clubs aren't considered as "recognized organizations", it should be discussed at the Village Pump, because it will affect not just three files, but several other where their future has been already decided. --Amitie 10g (talk) 13:45, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
@Amitie 10g:, can you please show us what other cases you are mentioning? Also, for the Mexican law, what are "recognized organizations"? --Ruthven (msg) 21:24, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
I started this thread at the Village Pump. Should be better to discusse this issue there. --Amitie 10g (talk) 21:30, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
@Amitie 10g: For future reference, it is not okay to reopen an UnDR once a decision has been made. In case you think something has been missed, please raise the issue with the closing person or on other suitable forums like you have done here. In this case, I will let the discussion continue here, but please do not repeat that behaviour in the future. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 21:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Coca Xie, founder and CEO of China Entertainment.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This file is being reviewed on OTRS, please undelete so it can process. [1] MCMLXXXIX 14:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


  Done: @1989: done. A quick follow up regarding how they became the copyright holder wouldn't harm. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Redeleted and reopened. The OTRS message is from the subject. As Natuur12 says, we need to know how the subject got the right to freely license the image -- that's usually done by her providing a copy of the license from the photographer. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:31, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


File:Janid La Magia.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This file is being reviewed on OTRS, please undelete so it can process. [2] MCMLXXXIX 14:20, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


  Done: @1989: done. This one needs a follow up question regarding how this person becames the copyright holder. Prof albumcover. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:28, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Redeleted and reopened. Again, the e-mail is from the subject, who claims that she is creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright. That's very unlikely to be correct. She is certainly not the creator and almost certainly not the sole owner of the copyright. Photographers almost never sell copyrights -- in many countries it is not even possible. We need to have evidence that she has the right to freely license the copyright. That is usually done by requesting a copy of the license from the photographer via OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:38, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


File:Janid Penicilina.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This file is being reviewed on OTRS, please undelete so it can process. [3] MCMLXXXIX 14:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


  Done: Same as La Magia but this time it is a professional photograph. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Redeleted and reopened. As with File:Janid La Magia.jpg. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:41, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Files to undelete concerning entry "Dieter Sieger"


I hereby affirm that I represent Dieter Sieger, the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the above mentioned pictures and have legal authority in my capacity to release the copyright of that work.

I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the free license: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).

I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

Dagmar Kronenberger-Hueffer Appointed representative of Dieter Sieger for this wikipedia entry December 2, 2016

Dagmarkh (talk) 09:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

First, please note that since you are apparently working for Dieter Sieger, you are probably in violation of WMF policy on Conflict of Interest. I do not know the link to the WP:DE page for that, but you may read it in English at WP:COI.

Second, while many of these are good photographs which we would like to have on Commons (with the exception noted above), they have totally inadequate descriptions and categories. We have more than 30 million images on Commons and without good categories, no one will ever find them. Therefore, when they are restored you must ensure that they are properly described and categorized.

Finally, there is the matter of copyright. There are several issues.

  1. In four cases, the author of the work shown is Dieter Sieger. Note that you are not the author of his paintings -- he is. He will need to provide a free license himself, sent directly to OTRS from an e-mail address traceable to him.
  2. In several cases, the object pictured may have a copyright in some countries. I leave that question to my colleagues who are more familiar with German law.
  3. In 13 cases, the photographer is a third party. In all of those cases either (a) the actual photographer must provide a free license using OTRS or (b) Dieter Sieger must provide a free license together with a copy of the written agreement with the photographer which allows Sieger to freely license it.

If you want to act for Dieter Sieger, you may do so provided that you first supply OTRS with an appropriate power of attorney from Sieger. I know that all of this will be a lot of paperwork. Please remember that since copyright can last 150 years or more, long after we all are dead, that copyright licenses must be carefully documented. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:03, 2 December 2016 (UTC)


File:Performance met naakten.jpg (photographer)

Works by Sicking - I hold all rights:

Exhibition of Sicking last november, I took the photo's

Please undelete the above files that are part of the wikipedia page Joost Sicking. The artist himself left this life 30 years ago and I hold all licenses to his work by heritage. Some of the images may have been cropped to remove backgrounds etc. It is important to show the work of an artist for people to be able to see who he was and what he did. I appreciate your concern for copyrights, but in this case there is no need for it.

Thank you, Caro Sicking (talk) 16:44, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

  Oppose First, I assume you are the widow, daughter, or sister of Joost Sicking. Unless you are actually unrelated to him, your editing on WP:NL is in violation of WMF global policy on Conflict of Interest. There is a summary of the rules at WP:COI. In particular, you should declare your conflict on your talk pages both here and on WP:NL. You should also restrict your editing to correction of factual errors made by others.

Second, I am afraid that your assumptions about copyright are incorrect in most of the cases above. As a general rule, except in the case of 2D artworks, the photographer holds the copyright to images. Therefore, you do not, on the face of, have the right to freely license most of the images above, except, perhaps, the art work of Joost Sicking. I have noted on each file above the person who holds the copyright. In order to have them kept on Commons, each of the copyright holders must send a free license to OTRS.

As for Joost Sicking's own works, if you are his heir, then you have the right to license them. However, because we get many fans and vandals who pick a username in order to give fake permissions, we require that in these circumstances the heir must send a free license using the procedure at OTRS.

Note to my colleagues -- the blue links above all have {{No permission since}} or {{Delete}} tags placed by Natuur12 so we might as well discuss the whole package here rather than in several different places. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:37, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Miss Lindsey Abudei's request

Please undelete. The image said to be deleted for copyright reasons is a picture I took myself and have posted on my social media accounts: www. twitter.com/misslind_sea & www.quebecbrown.tumblr.com

I do not understand why it supposedly violates copyright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miss Lindsey Abudei (talk • contribs) 16:45, 04 December 2016 (UTC)

  • As a courtesy to other editors, it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on talk pages, deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and the date will then automatically be added along with a timestamp when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

You have had three images deleted. Which one is this request about?

Note that image that have appeared elsewhere on the Web without a free license require your sending a free license using the procedure at OTRS. Note also that if any of these are restored, you must add useful categories or they will be deleted again. We have more than 30 million images on Commons and without categories an image is lost in the mass.

Finally, I would not restore the first image in any case -- it amounts to personal art, which we do not keep on Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Plasy, Královská kaple, oltářná menza.jpg

  Oppose Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Dobroš says "This user has uploaded images taken from Google and Getty Images, as well as uploaded images attributed to different names and taken with different cameras in the EXIF metadata. 3 of which has been deleted as obvious copyvio already." This file confirms that judgement as it is indeed a copyright violation. I agree that it is, as you say, a crop from File:17 celkový horní prostor 2.JPG -- the pattern of the sunlight in front makes that clear. However, it is a copyvio because Dobroš claimed "own work", as he or she apparently did on at least 70 other files that were the work of others. It is actually the work of User:Filip.vyska.

It could be restored here with proper attribution. However, I see no reason why the cropped image of the altar is in any way better than the larger image which puts the altar in context. Anyone who wanted to examine the altar more closely can simply pull up the 4272x2848 version of File:17 celkový horní prostor 2.JPG and view the altar at the same size as in this cropped version. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:05, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Regarding "own work" problem. Dobroš admits, its a crop from that file. I assume the user was new and thus can make some mistakes. I cannot see much help to her here on Commons. Licenses are not so widely known. So I assume this is a minor problem, which can be repair by explanation to the user and changing the source. Regarding other deleted files, we are now in process of OTRS verification - Dobroš admints that just one file, the first one is imagevio.
Regarding the use. You might be right. On the other hand details are always appreciated. But what about the artical en:altar stone. Will you have the same argumentation? Sometimes the details are appreciated and this mensa, is not usual.--Juandev (talk) 12:50, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for introducing me to the word "mensa". My wife is an Episcopal priest and I am active in the Church and I have never seen it before in this context.
Even at the article Altar stone I would use the larger image -- context is always good and, as I said above, the WP zoom function allows a reader to see the altar at the same size as the cropped version. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
But Wikipedia is not a gallery. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, full of text and images supports it as illustrations. So the image should describe exactly that part of article. Push readers to scroll is not a mission of Wikipedia. Anyway, I informed the original creator, to come to present her Point Of View (POV).--Juandev (talk) 18:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
And I am sorry, maybe my use of the word "mensa" (which I assume comes from latin) was not correct. I am not an English native speaker.--Juandev (talk) 18:25, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Juandev, absolutely no apology is necessary here -- my "thank you" was entirely sincere -- precisely because many of our colleagues do not have native English, I avoid sarcasm and slang and try to say exactly what I mean in relatively simple English. I like learning new things and "mensa" is a perfectly legitimate English word. It is, indeed, Latin for "table". .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Students gardening file

I figured you might appreciate the absurdly long file name not appearing in the title.  

Permission in ticket:2016091610013419. Please ping me upon undeletion for the necessary cleanup. ~ Rob13Talk 09:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

  Done. @BU Rob13: Requests for adminship is through this shiny and attractive door. Nick (talk) 13:39, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Windows logo with wordmark.png

Category:Windows logos with wordmarks contains

Category:Microsoft Windows logos contains

Therefore undelete File:Windows logo with wordmark.png to have a proper deletion discussion. 77.179.201.26 13:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Only File:Windows logo - 2002–2012 (Multicolored).svg is trivial. Two other files should be deleted. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:56, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Heather Eatman and her band.jpg

ticket:2016081610010898 contains permission. Please ping me upon undeletion. Thanks! ~ Rob13Talk 21:41, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


  Done: @BU Rob13:. --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Fak u dolan.svg

See also: User_talk:Jcb#File:Fak_u_dolan.svg

Recently all Dolan Duck cartoons have been marked as a violation of the copyright of "Cheezburger, Inc" and swiftly been deleted. It is realistic that most of them were the violation of someone's copyright. But I created this file myself, and I think it was ok to have it here as a personal image ("The uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user page..." COM:Scope). Is it somehow too much to ask, that only copyright violations should be deleted as copyright violations? Because that is how Jcb's answer sounds. Greetings, Watchduck (quack) 22:46, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I did not undelete the file, because even if it would not be a copyright violation, it was out of scope anyway. The 'user page image' argument does not work, because the file was apparently not in use as a user page image. Jcb (talk) 23:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Watchduck What about the copyright of Dolan as a character? Some creative person developed this character, and without their permission, art of the character would not be allowed on Wikipedia. Are you Dolan's creator? Can you get permission from this person? Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The image was used on User:Watchduck/list. The image contained two badly drawn eyes and a badly drawn beak - not a face with all the features of Dolan. If that were a copyright violation, every stickfigure would be a copyright violation of w:XKCD or whoever considers themselves the owner of stickfigures.
Oh, and the image might even have a realistic educational purpose: I illustrates how even an incompetent baby drawing showing two eyes and some kind of mouth can be interpreted as subject to someone else's copyright. :) Watchduck (quack) 00:26, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
From COM:SCOPE: "An otherwise non-educational file does not acquire educational purpose solely because it is in use on a gallery page or in a category on Commons, nor solely because it is in use on a user page." Adding it to User:Watchduck/list, along with dozens of other images, does IMO not render it in scope. Storkk (talk) 11:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  Oppose I agree with Storkk that it is out of scope and with Bluerasberry that it is clearly a derivative work. A search on Google turns up hundreds of images of Dolan Duck with exactly the same eyes and beak. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Nagymaros-Visegrád_megállóhely_01.jpg

Sorting out the permissions-hu queue, I found the previously sent permission for the picture. I'd like to request to restore the picture so that we can put the OTRS ticket number on it and the appropriate licence. Thanks, Eniport (talk) 23:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Bernáth_Árpád.jpg

Sorting out the permissions-hu queue, I found the previously sent permission for the picture. I'd like to request to restore the picture so that we can put the OTRS ticket number on it and the appropriate licence. Thanks, Eniport (talk) 23:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Molnár_Márk.jpg

Sorting out the permissions-hu queue, I found the previously sent permission for the picture. I'd like to request to restore the picture so that we can put the OTRS ticket number on it and the appropriate licence. Thanks, Eniport (talk) 23:56, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:C1115.jpg

Hello, I am afraid there was no valid reason for my file to be deleted. It's a copy of the original Birth Certificate of the late Egyptian actress Souad Hosni. It was issued by the Egyptian Government in 1943 and is sealed by the Egyptian Ministry of interior. This document serves as a reliable source which confirms her place of birth and birthdate. The person who requested its deletion has his own biases and agenda and has been banned from editing many times before. Thanks in advance. --Rita saber1 (talk) 02:47, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

  Oppose This file has been uploaded by two accounts five times and deleted five times:

There are at least four reasons why this can't be kept on Commons. First, there is a serious question about whether it is authentic. I can't speak to that since I don't read Arabic and have never before seen an Egyptian birth certificate . Second, it is really too small (225 × 332px) to be legible, so it serves to prove nothing. Third, no digital copy can "serve[s] as a reliable source which confirms her place of birth and birthdate" -- any Arabic speaker could photo-shop this to say anything he wanted it to say. Last and most important, it is out of scope. Except for birth certificates for persons whose birth is the subject of serious controversy (e.g. Barack Obama), we do not keep public records on Commons. All of this has been explained several times to the uploader.

The uploader has broken Commons rules four times by uploading the file after its deletion. He or she has also made ad hominem attacks against the nominator claiming bias. The uploader has used three accounts on Commons in the last 45 days -- User:Rita-saber, User:Summerstar1, and User:Rita-saber1. I have blocked the latter two as socks of the first. The uploader has a total of 74 edits on WMF projects using the three accounts.

The nominator, of whom the uploader says "has been banned from editing many times before" has 10,000 edits on WMF projects, mostly on WP:AR, and, indeed, has been blocked twice, for a period of one day.

The four deleting Admins are experienced members of the Commons community and don't have any particular biases that I have ever seen. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:30, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

  Oppose For the reasons stated by Jim. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

  Not done : the dr's has been closed correctly, thus no undeletion is needed here. --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Infinite (1996), by Eminem.png

Previous revisions must exist, i.e. other images and history logs. The image was deleted as copyvio; then the uploader re-uploaded the file. --George Ho (talk) 05:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

@George Ho: Please clarify your request for undeletion... I'm not sure what you are asking to undelete, and under what rationale, especially since you have also nominated the file for deletion... do you think the versions need swapping? In case it helps, the history here is that Illegitimate Barrister uploaded the current CD cover in 2013, that looks probably too simple for copyright to me (but clearly you disagree). This was overwritten by L Trey on 18 November, with a photograph of a slightly abused CD cover of similar but perhaps slightly more copyrightability, although it seems to be lacking the texture that you argue might be copyrihtable. The file was then tagged as a copyright violation and both versions were deleted by Hedwig in Washington, and subsequently the original version was re-uploaded by the original uploader. Storkk (talk) 08:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Not to revert actually. We might need to examine the history logs and previous file versions; that's all. --George Ho (talk) 08:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Above TOO, the bar in the middle is not solid but has a pattern. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 11:26, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Sanki King portrait.jpg

ticket:2016092310000866 contains permission. Please ping me when undeleted. ~ Rob13Talk 08:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

@BU Rob13:   Done, also duplicate processed. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 11:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:DBR9.jpg and other Prodrive files

This file has been deleted from the Prodrive page. I work for Prodrive and uploaded the file. The company owns the rights to use this image wherever it wants and is happy for it to be used on this page to help improve the detail of information.

--Ben sayer (talk) 09:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC) Additionally:


  Not done : see Storkk's comment. --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Modificado Símbolo da Chapecoense.svg

On December 5th this logo was deleted, on the grounds of not being "simple text". However, such argument seems to be quite weak as we usually consider that how simple or complex the fonts and typefaces are is not relevant (see {{PD-textlogo}} and en:Wikipedia:Public_domain#Fonts_and_typefaces). That is, regardless of how distinctive the font is, it's a font and therefore ineligible for copyright. On the other hand, I have to notice that, even if it has been required three times (see here, here and here), the same files haven't been deleted. My conclusion is that the alleged copyright violation is far from clear and in fact nobody wants to enforce the deletion request. Therefore, I cannot but require the undeletion of the original file. Best regards --Discasto talk 10:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

  OpposeThe subject is, indeed, complicated, but I think Commons as a whole deals with it correctly. A logo that is pure text can have no copyright in the USA because, no matter how complex the type font is, type faces have no copyright. The UK is exactly opposite -- typography has a special 25 year copyright. So, there is a range of possibilities which varies from country to country.
This, however, is not simple text. It is text set on a distinctive seal. The central text is an unusual font. We do not know where Brazil sits on the range from the USA no copyright for fonts to the UK explicit copyright for typography. Hence this was deleted under COM:PRP and should not be restored unless someone can prove that this would not have a copyright in Brazil. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:La Brita Esperantisto 978.jpg

Permission confirmed in OTRS ticket 2016080310007551. --Rrburke (talk) 11:44, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


  Done: per request. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 13:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:La Espero 2016-02.jpg

Permission confirmed in OTRS ticket 2016073010006083. --Rrburke (talk) 11:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


  Done: per request. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 13:48, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Vbx5ktJ6.png

File uploaded yesterday, removed due to copyright infringement. I work for copyright holder (KUBE Radio) and have full permission to use for the intended article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 00jelwes (talk • contribs) 12:25, 07 December 2016 (UTC)

  •   Oppose We do not accept media where the permission is solely "for [an] intended article". We only accept media with licenses that permit anybody to use them for any purpose. Please see COM:L. If the copyright holder wishes to apply such a license, please have a legal representative (i.e. someone who has the authority to license the station's intellectual property) confirm this by following the instructions on OTRS. Storkk (talk) 12:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

  Not done : see Storkk's comment. --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:41, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Marta-Guerras..jpg

es una imagen cedida por la propia actriz para incorporarla a su biografia en wikipedia

Polipomarino (talk) 12:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

  Oppose There are two problems here. First "para incorporarla a su biografia en wikipedia" is not sufficient permission. We require that all images must be free for any use by anyone anywhere. Second, the subject may or may not have the right to freely license the image. That right is usually held by the photographer. In order to restore this to Commons, either (a) the actual photographer must send a free license using the procedure at OTRS or (b) the subject must send a free license to OTRS together with a copy of her written agreement with the actual photographer which allows the subject to freely license it.

Please note that OTRS, like Commons, is all volunteers, and, also like Commons, is badly understaffed, so it may be several weeks before the image can be restored.

Also please note that claiming "own work" on an image for which you were not the photographer is a serious violation of our rules. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)