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 • ‎українська • ‎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.


This is my photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editorouno (talk • contribs) 06:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Nyitott visszaállítási kérések

Watch View Edit

File:Ordinanza del Giudice per le indagini preliminari respingente le accuse di diffamazione verso Cécile Kyenge.pdf

This document was an Italian court judgement, that if I remember well, as any other judgement pronounced by a court in Italy, should have been released in the public domain. In fact, this same file can be obtained directly from the official website of the "Giudice per le indagini preliminari del Tribunale di Milano". Anyway, since it can't be directly linked (one can download it through a php form after inserting the judgement number) I have uploaded it here to link it through the special property related to Commons to its wikidata element. --Ogoorcs (talk) 23:24, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

@Ogoorcs: Commons:Copyright rules by territory#Italy seems to indicate that at least government documents may not be Public Domain. Do you have any source that judgements from Italian courts are in the Public Domain? I have tried to find the judgement in questions via this site, but had no luck neither with 28558/15 (R.G.N.R.) nor with 14428/16 (R.G.G.I.P.), the two numbers given at the top of the document. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 04:12, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  Oppose The Italian Copyright Law, at Article 5 says:
"The provisions of this Law shall not apply to the texts of official acts of the State or of public administrations, whether Italian or foreign." (WIPO translation)
A court judgement is certainly an "official act of... public administration", so I think this is PD.
With that said, though, there remains the question of whether it is in scope. There are millions of court judgements available electronically and I can not, offhand, recall that Commons hosts any of them. Neither Roe v Wade nor Brown v Board of Education are hosted on Commons and they are arguably two of the most important cases in the last hundred years. Why is this judgement more important than Brown v Board? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:22, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward:(Jim), I'm sorry that I haven't provided all the needed details on my first post, I hope this second answer can remedy to that; although I can still be considered a novice to online interactions with wiki* community, I think I can still persuade you that this file can stay.
  Support About the public domain status of the document, it should be made available on the page @Srittau: linked, as per court order, but unfortunately the retrieval tool, as many other PA (public administration) web tools in Italy, doesn't work at all for me. Anyway, as specified in my previously linked news, the document can be copied going directly to the tribunal, as the journalist of the national newspaper I took the file from, probably did.
As for the project scope, that is "making available public domain and freely-licensed media content providing instructional or informative knowledge to all", I think this document, as any other court sentence, perfectly complies with it.
Even if the argument you used (the fact that more important judgements are not hosted on this site) is logically inconsistent (no one has done this, so is forbidden), one can easily observe that the two cases you mentioned have their court judgement hosted officially by their state web infrastructure. This is obviously not the case here, since on the contrary we don't have the luck to have a government capable of keeping online his judgements, and that's the main reason I am trying to upload this file her, otherwise lacking the chance to use it for reference use in a wiki project.
Ogoorcs (talk) 21:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
You still have not explained the importance of this document -- most of us do not read Italian and therefore have no idea why it should be an exception to a long standing method of operation. Please give us a summary of the document. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
The black Italian MP Cécile Kyenge was called publicly orangutan by the racist Lega Nord MP Roberto Calderoli in 2013; the official party pressroom defended his "position"; Kyenge then published an article saying that the party is racist; after that, the party sued her for defame.
This is the judgement declaring that she didn't defame Lega Nord. In general I need this document to reference the wikidata entry about the sentence and eventually reference a statement affirming that Lega Nor is a racist party (in the future).
Ogoorcs (talk) 23:46, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Hmm. I don't know if there are any different rules on wikidata or WP:IT, but on WP:EN you would reference the document as you do any other source just as you have described in the first paragraph above. I still don't think we should be keeping court judgements that are otherwise easily available on line, but I don't feel strongly about it. What do others think? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
The problem is in fact that it isn't easily available; I mean, we can't stay assured that the newspaper will keep this file online forever. Further you can't directly link it since you have to pass for this page. Another reason for the file to stay is that will serve to proof the need for a generic media type Commons property in Wikidata, which right now consider image (P18) as the only linkable media type.
It can be considered lame to say, but my alternative, if we can't reach an agreement on the usefulness of having a mirror of a court judgement here, is to upload it to the Internet Archive, which community doesn't pretend to judge the information value of the document their users upload (they just review license), appealing to the principle that any kind of original work in the public domain must have a value, otherwise why keep it? They don't care for storage and bandwidth since 1996; shouldn't wikimedia projects too?
Ogoorcs (talk) 01:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Why wouldn't we host them? The reason we don't have Brown v. Board is largely historical; if someone wanted to upload the appropriate official volume here, we should, and it wouldn't hurt the English Wikisource to do so and have scan-backed sources for those court cases.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

  Oppose I fear that there is a copyright on the Italian court judgements, even if they are published on an official webpage (available, yes, but still copyrighted as for any other webpage; in fact, you have to pay to access to a written copy of a judgement). They are not "official acts" of the Republic, which are the laws, so they fall under the law 633/1941; see www.giustizia.it. So, as the Ministry holds the copyright, requests have to be addressed to it. Certain information can be published, but only for information sake, and non commercial activities ("L'utilizzazione, la riproduzione, l'estrazione di copia, la distribuzione delle informazioni testuali, degli elementi multimediali e del patrimonio conoscitivo disponibile su questo sito sono autorizzate esclusivamente nei limiti in cui le stesse avvengano nel rispetto dell'interesse pubblico all'informazione, per finalità non commerciali, garantendo l'integrità degli elementi riprodotti e mediante indicazione della fonte. L’amministrazione individua le ipotesi di possibile utilizzo anche a fini commerciali"), which is not compatible with Commons' policy.

Moreover, the usage of private data from the judgements is strictly limited by Italian law 36/2006, and we don't exactly know the usage that can be done of these private data, even if it's not central in this case ("In particolare, i dati personali pubblicati sono «riutilizzabili solo alle condizioni previste dalla normativa vigente sul riuso dei dati pubblici (direttiva comunitaria 2003/98/CE e d.lgs. 36/2006 di recepimento della stessa), in termini compatibili con gli scopi per i quali sono stati raccolti e registrati, e nel rispetto della normativa in materia di protezione dei dati personali» [1]). --Ruthven (msg) 23:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

File:2015-09-08 Antonio Umberto Riccò, Koodinator deutsch-italienische Arbeitsgruppe Unser Herz schlägt auf Lampedusa, (13).JPG

  Support Antonio Umberto Riccò ist in meinen Augen relevant, Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 16:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

  Support Relevanter Autor: [2][3][4][5]. --Stobaios (talk) 17:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

  Comment The absurdity of this review process is that we can't see what you uploaded, so could you upload the file elsewhere for us to see?
Ogoorcs (talk) 01:44, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

File:2015-04-20 Beate Albrecht, Schauspielerin, Jenseits vom Tag, Haus der Region Hannover (2).JPG

Beate Albrecht wieder herstellen und in ihrem Artikel einbinden und bitte keine Massenlöschungen mehr, dann kommt so etwas auch nicht vor. Denke mal sie ist die Autorin oder? Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 22:30, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

  Support Beate Albrecht ist Schauspielerin und Autorin aus Witten, GND 131419900, in der Presse wegen ihrer Theaterstücke gegen Rassismus [6][7][8][9]. --Stobaios (talk) 01:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Der Artikel ist über jemand anderes. Aber   Support per Stobaios. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 06:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

File:2014-12-06 Sabine Schiller alias Gisela (X-Diaries), hier am Kröpcke in Hannover (3).JPG“

Wenn das eine Schauspielerin ist, dann sollte sie relevant sein oder, wenn ja bitte auch

File:2014-12-06 Sabine Schiller alias Gisela (X-Diaries), hier am Kröpcke in Hannover (3).JPG
File:2014-12-06 Sabine Schiller alias Gisela (X-Diaries), hier am Kröpcke in Hannover (2).jpg
File:2014-12-06 Sabine Schiller alias Gisela (X-Diaries), hier am Kröpcke in Hannover (1).jpg
Wiederherstellen. Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 22:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  Support Spielte vier Jahre in der TV-Serie w:de:X-Diaries von w:de: RTL 2. --Stobaios (talk) 02:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  Oppose Scheint überhaupt keine Rezeption in den Medien erfahren zu haben. Google findet im wesentlichen nur ihre Homepage und die Seite von RTL 2. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 06:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  Support Moment, vier Jahre Serie spielen ist nicht so relevant, wie eine Schauspielerin mit drei noch schlechteren Schmuddelfilmen? -- Ra Boe watt?? 07:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Wo habe ich irgendetwas über die Qualität der Serie gesagt. Die Schauspielerin hat aber anscheinend so gut wie keine mediale oder sonstige Rezeption erfahren (zumindest laut Google), trotz vier Jahren. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 17:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Moin Sebari, sorry ich meinte Dich nicht, sondern die Rezessionen im Netz. ;) -- Ra Boe watt?? 17:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

File:2015-05-24 Boulefestival Hannover, (311) Edeltraut-Inge Geschke.JPG

  Support Finde vergleichbare Bilder auf Commons, da Bezirksbürgermeister auch immer politische Entscheidungen treffen und so in den Medien sind. -- Ra Boe watt?? 07:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  Support Engagierte und beliebte Kommunalpolitikerin (Hannover Nord) [10][11][12][13]. --Stobaios (talk) 02:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Volkswagen logo 2012.svg

a simple letter and geometric logo, no need for a deletion. its a typical Wdwd thing, he is well known in german wikipedia for deletions like this Norschweden (talk) 00:09, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

  Oppose - not below TOO - Jcb (talk) 11:37, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
of cause it is, the logo is made of two circles, a V a W a, two triangles, two rectangles, and 2 semicircles Norschweden (talk) 12:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
A close call. Probably below the ToO in the USA, but as I understand it, probably above the ToO in Germany. Ultimately everything is made up of simple components. The question is not the components, but whether they are creatively arranged. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:55, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
its also below ToO in germany Norschweden (talk) 16:01, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Why? Natuur12 (talk) 16:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
because its just gemetric stuff and two letters Norschweden (talk) 16:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC)


Actually, Germany had a much (MUCH) higher threshold than the U.S. for logos, until recently -- logos had "clearly surpass the average design" to be copyrightable. A 2013 ruling overturned that though, with this: When assessing whether a work of applied art reaches the level of creativity necessary for copyright protection, it must be taken into consideration that the aesthetic effect of the design can only provide a basis for copyright protection to the extent that it is not due to its intended use, but is based on artistic creativity. It must further be considered that a level of creativity that, while providing grounds for copyright protection, is still only slight, results in a correspondingly narrow scope of protection for the work in question. That ruling does involve "aesthetic effect" where the U.S. does not, but does seem to limit it to artistic creativity -- and also mentions that the scope of protection is pretty narrow, so that uses in derivative works would presumably rarely be infringing. If the SVG has a lot of 3-D effects and that sort of thing, it probably is copyrightable in the U.S. anyways, though the basic letters and arrangement probably would not be. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

  Support I support because of the argument, but I would like to see the file anyway. Ogoorcs (talk) 01:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

File:3OTO-SAC-UTR-JB4.pdf

Hi, i think that the rationale of this deletion request is completely wrong. I've no doubt, that Ph.D. Cesar D. Fermin is the copyright owner of his microscopic images. We need this PDF with it's licence as source of the extracted version. Regards --Ras67 (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

  •   Oppose Irrespective of the licence, this appears to have been a single image stored as PDF. Photographic images at Commons should be stored as JPG but not as PDF. De728631 (talk) 18:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Sure, nobody needs the PDF, but i can not put the licence to the new JPG version. An admin or trusted user may prove, that the licence is correct. Thanks --Ras67 (talk) 21:52, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • That is also why you should not have uploaded the JPG. Unless we have written evidence that Cesar D. Fermin is the scientist of the same name, we cannot host this image. De728631 (talk) 19:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment About storing images at Commons with PDF, the image (P18) property on Wikidata assert that PDF is an acceptable format for Commons, so to me if we can't convert to other format due to license problems, I think we can of course host a PDF. Ogoorcs (talk) 02:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Series of Tubes - Senator Ted Stevens.ogg

recording from senate / c-span falls under: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_status_of_work_by_the_U.S._government and https://www.c-span.org/about/copyrightsAndLicensing and as such I believe is public domain

--TimofeiT9 (talk) 21:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

  Oppose From the cited page, emphasis added:

"Under C-SPAN's copyright policy a license is generally not required to post a recording of C-SPAN's video coverage of federal government events online for non-commercial purposes so long as C-SPAN is attributed as the source of the video.""

NC licenses are not acceptable on Commons . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


  Not done : as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 11:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Philip Hitti.jpg

This file has for sure no copy rights — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moußsa (talk • contribs) 23:54, 19 February 2017 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Khuri_Hitti — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moußsa (talk • contribs) 23:55, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Please explain why this is so. Thuresson (talk) 06:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  Oppose With very few exceptions, none of which apply here, all created works have copyrights until they expire. There is no free license at the source site. Philip Khuri Hitti died in 1978 at the age of 92. He appears to be somewhere between forty and seventy in this image, so the image was probably taken between 1926 and 1956. There is no evidence of where it was taken or where it was first published. While it may or may not still be under copyright, place and date of first publication is essential to determining its status. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

  Not done : as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 11:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Files by Flickr user Josh Schmitt

  Oppose Since the Flickr account appears to be full of copyright violations, I see no reason to restore any of the images below. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Christiane Farqui.jpg

This file should be undeleted as I messaged the Flickr user over the weekend and they let me know that they have since change the permissions on their image.

Womble of Wall Street (talk) 12:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

While there is a low resolution version of this image at the USIP website, a large file with a full set of EXIF has been uploaded at Flickr. De728631 (talk) 20:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

File:ITSCi.png

This file should be undeleted as I messaged the Flickr user over the weekend and they let me know that they have since change the permissions on their image.

Womble of Wall Street (talk) 12:19, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

  Oppose Appears to be licence laundering: [14]. De728631 (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Mediation in Latin America.jpg

This file should be undeleted as I messaged the Flickr user over the weekend and they let me know that they have since changed the permissions on their image.

Womble of Wall Street (talk) 12:19, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


  Done Image is now available at Flickr under a CC-by-sa-2.0 licence. De728631 (talk) 20:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@De728631: I reopened this, because the account look suspiciously like a Flickrwashing account. Very low views, all files supposedly taken with a point and shoot camera, even images that look like official portraits, small sizes. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 20:19, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
You might be on to something there. I did a reverse search and it turned out that the same image is being used by the United States Institute of Peace although without credits. If it was taken by an employee of the USIP it would be PD-USGov, but we don't know that. De728631 (talk) 20:31, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Also that file has no EXIF data in the USIP page, which makes it even more suspicious. Would you agree to delete the file again? Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 21:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Note also that the USIP is an independent Federally chartered organization. It is not completely clear whether PD-US Gov applies at all. See http://www.usip.org/legal/privacy for more information. There the USIP explicitly notes that many of the images on its site have copyrights. This one has no credit line, so we cannot know its status. I think the image should be deleted. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

File:William Zemp.jpg

This file should be undeleted as I messaged the Flickr user over the weekend and they let me know that they have since changed the permissions on their image. Womble of Wall Street (talk) 12:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

  Oppose The Flickr account is dubious (see discussion above). This image was cropped and mirrored from a larger photo at the USIP website. De728631 (talk) 20:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Ankaracenter.jpg

Originally uploaded to enwiki by the author, John M. McGough/Jayzel68. —innotata 21:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

  Oppose This image was deleted from Commons in 2006 because the author was not the uploader. It's out of focus and unlikely to be used anywhere. I see no reason to restore it here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Austria.jpg File:Austria map.jpg

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/resources/cia-maps-publications/Austria.html

this is published by the CIA Denniscallan (talk) 21:38, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

This is most likely referring to File:Austria map.jpg. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  Support The file data in the {{Information}} template is clearly bogus, but the linked source seems genuine. ({{PD-USGov-CIA}}) Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 22:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  Support The University of Texas library copyright notice cited in the deletion is bogus, as the page also clearly states that this map, among others, was created by the CIA. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

  Done: Seeing no objection, I have restored it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Ivan Kablukov (1857-1942).jpg

Hi, friends

This file is authorized its use in Russian Wikipedia, that's why we decided to use it in others Wikipedia. It is public dominion and regards to a russian scientist. Why it can be used in the Russian Wikipedia and not in others. Respectfully I ask you to restore the file which is necessary for the respective file.Claudio Pistilli (talk) 22:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Can you link the Russian Wikipedia's file link?
Ogoorcs (talk) 02:11, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  Oppose The source has a clear copyright notice. For what reason did WP:RU ignore that? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

  Not done : as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 11:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Isadore Coop, circa 1948.jpg

This file was deleted because the Copyright License, although pending, was not delivered in time. It was delivered earlier today (to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). I would therefore request that it be undeleted.--Jack Coop (talk) 03:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

  Oppose If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the image will be restored automatically when and if the e-mail is received, processed, and approved. If the e-mail has been properly received there, then the sender should receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be several weeks before the e-mail is processed and the image is restored. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Dr-Rahif-Hakmi.jpg

Requesting to undelete this file as the copyright holder has given permission to publish this file under a free license by sending email ( permissions-commons@wikimedia.org ) to OTRS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Armadaholding (talk • contribs) 15:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Signing your posts on talk pages is required and it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on 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 a timestamp will then automatically be added 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 If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the image will be restored automatically when and if the e-mail is received, processed, and approved. If the e-mail has been properly received there, then the sender should receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be several weeks before the e-mail is processed and the image is restored. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Brasão de Itatira.jpg

Gostaria que o arquivo "Brasão de Itatira.jpg" fosse restaurado. Não existem direitos autorais sobre esse arquivo, o mesmo é de uso público pois pertence ao Município de Itatira, como poderá ser verificado no site www.itatira.ce.gov.br.

--Valberto Silva (talk) 15:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

21/02/2016, 12:57 hs.

  Oppose The source given in the file description is http://www.facaconcurso.com/prefeitura-de-itatira-ce-abre-concurso-publico-para-202-vagas/, which has an explicit copyright notice: © 2010 - 2017. The page you cite above, www.itatira.ce.gov.br, also has an explicit copyright notice: © Copyright© . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Sir N R Chatterjee.jpg

Request to undelete the above image as source is Own work — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ichatt4957 (talk • contribs) 05:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Are you the painter? Thuresson (talk) 06:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It doesn't seem that the uploader is the painter. A permission from the painter (the copyright holder) is needed. To do so, they must send an email to the OTRS. Ichatt4957, please don't reupload images that were deleted per community consensus. If you continue to do this, you may lose your editing privileges here on Commons. Consider this as a final warning. Thanks, Poké95 10:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose While it is certainly possible that this painting is PD-Old, that is not at all certain as the subject was active in the 1920s and died in 1942. In order to restore it we will need either proof that the artist died before 1957 (India is PMA 60) or a free license from the artist's heirs. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Jeff Schwartz TransAm.jpg

Hello,

I signed in to check the page for Jeffrey E Schwartz and saw notifications regarding copyright issues for my photos. These are indeed my photos, however it seems that I have missed the opportunity to participate is this discussion.

This picture of the white trans am was taken at the Milwaukee auto show by me.

Other pictures including the main photo of Jeff Schwartz were also taken by me and have also been deleted. The photos of Schwartz's ultima and cadillac were sent to me by Jeff Schwartz himself with permission to use his photos on the page.

I did check the copy right policies and to the best of my knowledge met the necessary requirements.

Could you please advise on the best way to document ownership these photos and any others that I upload to a file? Any assistance is appreciated.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdevlin67 (talk • contribs) 05:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

File:2006 0610Cozia0559.JPG

It was my own work. I login very rare in commons and i've missed the opportunity to tag the file. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CristianChirita (talk • contribs) 10:48, 22 February 2017‎ (UTC)

  • Signing your posts on talk pages is required and it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on 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 a timestamp will then automatically be added 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.

  Support This 2006 file was deleted for "no source". Although there is nothing in the "source=" line, there actually was no "source=" line in 2006. It's licensed as self GFDL, so it seems to me that instead of deleting this for "no source", we should have simply added "Source=Own Work" and "Author=CristianChirita"

CristianChirita, when it is restored, could you please fill in a little more detail on where this is and check the categories? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)